CrossTalk

Comments on Galatians 2:15-16

2007-01-17T10:04:00.000-06:00

I agree with your comments on Galatians 2:15-16, Timotheos. I would add only one observation. There is a reasonable question that we ought to raise concerning how 2:15-16 fit within the context. For the purpose of this brief discussion, here is my translation of 2:11-21.

But when Cephas came up to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For prior to the entrance of some men from James he was accustomed to eating with the Gentiles, but when they came, he began to pull back and hold himself separate, fearing those of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews joined him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with them into hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not behaving consistently with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you being a Jew, live as the Gentiles and no longer live as the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?
We, by nature Jews and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a human of the deeds required by the Law is not justified except through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, we also believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from Christ’s faithfulness and not from the deeds required by the law, because no flesh shall be justified from the deeds required by the law.
If while we seek to be justified in Christ we are found also to be sinners, then is Christ the servant of sin? No way! For if I build again what I destroyed, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, in order that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh, I live by the faithfulness that belongs to the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself on my behalf. I do not nullify God’s grace. For if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died gratuitously."

The question concerns where the closing quotation marks should be placed. Is verse 15 the only portion that should be regarded as Paul's direct response to Peter's wayward behavior? Or, should we view verses 16ff to be integral to his response to Peter? If it is the former, then Paul must be expounding the core of his reasoning that incited the question he poses in verse 15, even if he did not speak these words or words similar to them to Peter at the time. On the other hand, is it not likely that verses 16-21 represent an accurate accounting of the fullness of what Paul had said to Peter on the occasion? The fact that the verses sustain Paul's manner of speech begun in verse 15 (e.g., "we Jews" and "Gentile sinners") suggests that verses 16-21 should be regarded as the continuation of what Paul spoke publicly to Peter before the congregation at Antioch.

Use of the expression, "Gentile sinners," underscores the likelihood of my suggestion. It would have been a fitting stinging expression for Paul to use in his public rebuke of Peter in the presence of Jews and Gentiles alike in Antioch. Paul's use of the expression lays bare the implicit posture that Peter exhibited toward the Gentiles who were present as he withdrew from them to eat with Jews alone."

Also, it seems to me that we need to have a deep sense of the power of intimidation that was at work so as to seduce Peter away from his heavenly-vision-transformed-posture toward Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ (see Acts 10).

Does it make a difference whether we read verses 16-21 as the continuation of Paul's public speech to Peter in the church at Antioch? I think it does. I think that it enhances our understanding of the text. It seems to me that it sharpens the point that Paul is making. The issue at stake is not works righteousness; the issue is the end of the Mosaic Law's jurisdiction as covenant that defines God's people, the justified people, the seed of Abraham. Who are the justified people? Who are the people who are properly identified as Abraham's seed? The faithfulness of Jesus Christ is the all-essential feature that at once brings the Law of Moses to its terminus and inaugurates the new identifying feature of Abraham's seed because the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is the warrant, the ground, the basis upon which the justified people stand acquitted and declared righteous before God. It is not the Law Covenant (from the deeds required by the Law) that anyone stands justified before God. Rather, it is from the faithfulness of Jesus Christ that we find ourselves justified before God. Must we do anything to be justified? Yes. We must believe in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from Christ's faithfulness.

Ponder for a moment a segment of verse 16.

We, by nature Jews and not sinners of the Gentiles, know that a human of the deeds required by the Law is not justified except through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness. We also believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from Christ’s faithfulness and not from the deeds required by the law, because no flesh shall be justified from the deeds required by the law.

In particular, let's consider the force of Paul's words "we know that ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου is not justifed ἐὰν μὴ through the faithfulness of Christ Jesus." Concerning ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, most translations separate ἄνθρωπος from its genitive modifier ἐξ ἔργων νόμου and read something like this: "We know that a man is not justified from the deeds required by the law." As such, the genitive, ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, is taken to modify the negated verb, "not justified." It seems to me that ἄνθρωπος should be viewed as modified by the genitive ἐξ ἔργων νόμου with the sense that the phrase--"a man of the works required by the Law"--is descriptive of any Jew, who by birth, is subject to the Law. Concerning ἐὰν μὴ, I would take it in its normal sense and force as "except" or "unless." Thus, the translation would be, "We know that a man of the deeds required by the Law is not justified except through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ." In other words, no Jew is justified before God in any way other than the same way that the Gentiles are justified.

Paul's argument has a force similar to the argument that Peter makes before the Council in Jerusalem when he contends:

Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will” (Acts 15:10-11).

The point of reference, in both Paul's and Peter's arguments, shifts to the Gentiles. As Peter makes his argument, notice how he shifts the point of reference to the Gentiles when he says, "On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they [the Gentiles] will." As Paul makes his argument, observe how he shifts the point of reference to the Gentiles when he says, "We [Jews] . . . knowing that a man of the deeds required by the Law is not justified except through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, we also believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified from Christ’s faithfulness and not from the deeds required by the law, because no flesh shall be justified from the deeds required by the law." The Law of Moses offers absolutely nothing to a man's right standing before God. Whether one is of the deeds required by the Law (i.e., a Jew whose whole life is circumscribed by the Law of Moses) or one is a sinner of the Gentiles, what counts with regard to justification before God is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ.

Update: Readers, please observe some modifications and additions to this last entry.

Galatians 2.15-16

2006-12-11T14:41:00.000-06:00

It is a bit strange to begin our treatment of Galatians right in the middle of the letter. This is not to say that what proceeds is of no importance. Rather, this beginning point reflects more my recent research, and thus for expediency we are going to begin here. Also, we are going to begin here because it is in 2.16, where Paul makes a move similar to that in Romans 1.16-17, which is to state an enigmatic thesis statement and then unpack it in the verses which follow it. So below, I will offer my translation again, and focus on the verses.

Galatians 2.15-16

After Paul discusses his confrontation with Cephas, he states that he like Cephas is a Jew by nature and not a Gentile sinner. Yet (probably the better interpretation of the participle εἰδότες; eidotes 'to know') knowing that no one (not even the Jew) is justified by God on the basis of the deeds required by Torah. Rather, the basis of justification is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Right away in v. 16 there are some interpretations here that need to be spelled out. First, what does Paul mean by ἔργων νόμου, ergōn nomou 'works of law'? The NIV translates this phrase as 'observing the law'. This rendering highlights the active sense of ergōn translating the noun 'works' as 'doing'. This would fit the predominate understanding that in Galatians Paul is contrasting faith in Christ and doing the law (i.e., legalism) as a basis for one's justification by God. But there are many ways in which this Pauline phrase has been interpreted. Here are the more dominate interpretations:

• “Deeds preformed in obedience to the law” (objective genitive).

• Shorthand for legalism (qualitative genitive)

• “Works which the law performs” (subjective genitive)

• “Deeds the law prescribes” (genitive of definition)

My translation of ergōn nomou 'Deeds required by Torah' follows from the evidence that frequently ergōn is followed by the genitive of the one who assigns the work or the task (See Westerholm, Israel's Law and the Church's Faith). This relationship can be seen in John 6.28 and 8.41. This makes sense, it seems to me, because Paul sees Torah as a power, no just a list of rules (Gal 3.24). Thus, right away, we see that I am not seeing Paul as contrasting legalism and faith in Christ. Rather, Paul is contrasting two covenants. One covenant is represented by Paul as 'Deeds required by Torah' and the other covenant is 'Christ's faithfulness' (But this needs to be shown in the remainder of Galatians 2-3, which is what I will attempt to do).

Again, picking up, Paul stresses that one, whether Jew or Gentile, is justified only on the basis of Jesus' faithfulness. Instead of being justified by deeds demanded by Torah, the only way one is justified is by Jesus' faithfulness. Here we have another interpretive decision. Modern translations typically translate πίστεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, pisteōs Iēsou Christou, as 'faith in Jesus Christ'. For reasons which I will go on to show (especially Galatians 3.29), I see Paul talking about Jesus' faithfulness as the basis of the believer's justification, and not the believer's faith as the basis of justification (This was also argued in our interpretation of Romans 3.21-16). Paul's phrase, "Jesus' faithfulness" I think specifically refers to Jesus' obedience unto death, even death on a cross. Or more specifically to Galatians, his becoming a curse for those who believe by dying hung on a tree (Gal 3.13).

Thus, Paul in an enigmatic way in v. 16 is stating that those who believe on Jesus (whether Jew or Gentile) are justified by God not by belonging to Torah (the Mosaic covenant), but by Jesus' faithfulness in becoming a curse for us by dying on a tree.

From here Paul is going to go on and argue this point, and I will attempt to follow along.

What do you think, Paulos? Am I following Paul? Any corrections, additions, affirmations?

Blessings to you!

Timotheos

A Brief Change of Direction

2006-12-05T20:21:00.000-06:00

Wow! It has been too long since I posted on this blog. I have been busy with a project which relates to the study of Paul, and Paulos and I are going to use this as a change in direction. We will come back after this brief interlude to continue with Romans. But, because of the nature of the project, and because it is still fresh on my mind, Paulos and I are going to work our way through Paul's argument in Galatians 2.16-3.29. If you have read all of the posts on this blog, you are aware that Paulos and I are interpreting Paul's much contended phrase pistis Christou ('Faith of Christ') as Christ's Faithfulness. This interpretation is not only important in Romans 1.16-17 and more specifically Romans 3.21-26, but also for understanding Galatians 2.15-3.29.

For the last month and a half I have revisited Paul's argument in Gal 2-3, especially regarding the interpretation of pistis Christou as 'Christ's Faithfulness'. So, because Paulos has thought a great deal about this, we are going to take this opportunity and work through Gal 2-3, and then return to the complexities of Romans 7.

So, for this week's post I am going to offer my translation of Gal 2.15-3.29, so that you may all see where the discussion will be going. Blessings to you, as you read!

Galatians 2:15 - 3:29

¹⁵ We are Jews by nature and not Gentile sinners, ¹⁶ yet we know that no one is justified on the basis of the deeds required by Torah but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified on the basis of the faithfulness of Christ and not on the basis of the deeds required by Torah, because on the basis of the deeds required by Torah no one will be justified. ¹⁷ But if while seeking to be justified in Christ we ourselves have also been found to be sinners, is Christ then one who encourages sin? Absolutely not! ¹⁸ For if I build up again those things I once destroyed, I demonstrate that I am one who breaks God's Torah. ¹⁹ For through Torah I died to the Torah so that I may live to God. ²⁰ I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So the life I now live in the body, I live by the faithfulness that belongs to the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. ²¹ I do not set aside God's grace, because if righteousness was through the Torah, then Christ died for nothing!

^3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has cast a spell on you? Before your eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified! ² The only thing I want to learn from you is this: Did you receive the Spirit on the basis of the deeds required by Torah or on the basis of the message of faithfulness? ³ Are you so foolish? Although you began with the Spirit, are you now trying to finish by flesh? ⁴ Have you suffered so many things for nothing?– if indeed it was for nothing. ⁵ Does God then give you the Spirit and work miracles among you on the basis of the deeds required by Torah or on the basis of the message of faithfulness? ⁶ Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, ⁷ so then, understand that those who are of the faithfulness are the sons of Abraham. ⁸ And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles on the basis of faithfulness, proclaimed the gospel to Abraham ahead of time, saying, "All the nations will be blessed in you." ⁹ So then those who are of the faithfulness are blessed with faithful Abraham. ¹⁰ For all who are of the deeds required by Torah are under a curse, because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not keep on doing everything written in the book of the law." ¹¹ Now it is clear no one is justified before God by Torah, because the Righteous One will live on the basis of faithfulness. ¹² But Torah is not of faithfulness, but the one who does the works of Torah will live by them. ¹³ Christ redeemed us from the curse of Torah by becoming a curse for us (because it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree") ¹⁴ in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we could receive the promise of the Spirit through faithfulness. ¹⁵ Brothers, I offer an example from everyday life: When a covenant has been ratified, even though it is only a human contract, no one can set it aside or add anything to it. ¹⁶ Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say, "and to the seeds," referring to many, but "and to your seed," referring to one, who is Christ. ¹⁷ What I am saying is this: The law that came four hundred thirty years later does not cancel a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to invalidate the promise. ¹⁸ For if the inheritance is based on Torah, it is no longer based on the promise, but God graciously gave it to Abraham through the promise. ¹⁹ Why then was Torah given? It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the seed to whom the promise had been made. It was administered through angels by an intermediary. ²⁰ Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one. ²¹ Is Torah therefore opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by Torah. ²² But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given, because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, to those who believe. ²³ Now before this faithfulness came we were held in custody under Torah, being incarcerated for the faithfulness that was about to be revealed. ²⁴ Thus Torah had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous on the basis of faithfulness. ²⁵ But now this faithfulness has come, we are no longer under a guardian. ²⁶ For you are all sons of God through the faithfulness in Christ Jesus. ²⁷ For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. ²⁸ There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female– for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. ²⁹ And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seeds, heirs according to the promise.

Comments on Romans 6:15-18

2006-11-09T21:11:00.000-06:00

¹⁵ What then? Shall we sin because we are not under the Law but under grace? No way! ¹⁶ Do you not understand that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves to obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? ¹⁷ But thanks be to God that although you were slaves of sin, from the heart you became obedient to the pattern of teaching unto which you were handed over, ¹⁸ and having been set free from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness.

Once again, Paul raises a question akin to the one he posed in Romans 3:8 (And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just!) and similarly in Romans 6:1 (What shall we say, then? Shall we persist in sin, in order that grace might increase?). Each of these three questions bears similarities in that all touch upon God's plan or purpose concerning Israel, the Law of Moses, and human sinfulness. Nevertheless, despite the similarities among these three questions, each bears its own nuance. Paul's rhetorical question in vs. 15 implicitly cautions against wrong and flawed conclusions concerning what he has said in vs. 14--For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace. Lest anyone reason from this that freedom from the jurisdiction of the Law Covenant means that we are free to sin, Paul poses his rhetorical interrogative to beckon his readers to engage their minds fully in the argument that he is posing.

The notion that we can sin with impunity since we are not under the Law's jurisdiction (hypo nomon) but under the jurisdiction of grace (hypo charin) receives Paul's characteristically intense denunciation, May it never be! (mē genoito). Observe Paul's reply. He exploits the imagery of slavery to make his point. There is not one person who is free from slavery. Not one of us is a free agent, one who has no master. One is either a slave to sin or a slave to obedience, which is to be a slave of righteousness. Indeed, we who are in Christ Jesus have been set free from sin. Yet, we are still slaves. We have a new master. We are now enslaved to righteousness. Truly, Timotheos, it is as you have stated. This is true freedom.

Also observe the thorough integration of the two aspects that we observed in the previous segment, Romans 6:11-14. He integrates the indicative (What God has accomplished in Christ Jesus) with the imperative (What we are obliged to do).

Paul represents reality in Christ with indicative verbs in 6:4-10. Verse 11 transitions to exhortation, in verses 12 & 13 where imperative verbs dominate ("Let not sin reign. . . . Do not present . . . but present yourselves."). In verse 14, Paul returns to the indicative to say, "For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace." Paul is saying that sin's mastery or lordship (also sin's kingship) has been broken with Christ's death. Already, we dwell under a new master, the Lord Jesus Christ, as we await the consummation of Christ's mastery when sin will have no more dominion over us at all.

Paul integrates the indicative with the imperative by posing a question: Do you not understand that the one to whom you present yourselves as slaves to obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? The kind of slavery Paul has in view does not leave us as hostages led about unwillingly or passively. Rather, the apostle makes it clear that our desires, our wills, our willing submission is quite active so that we are willing participants in our enslavement. Paul's question, then, recalls his admonitions in vv. 11-13.

Likewise, you also consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin have dominion in your mortal bodies unto the obedience of its cravings. Nor present your members to sin as tools for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as ones who are alive from the dead, and present your members to God as tools for righteousness.

What is Paul saying in vv. 15ff? There is no neutrality in the Christian life. The Christian life is one of enslavement to righteousness. Christians are enslaved to righteousness. Christians cannot be enslaved to sin. What about all those "Christians" that we know who seem, as well as we can observe, to be enslaved to sin? Let God be proved true and every man be proved a liar (Romans 3:4).

One further element is worthy of comment. Verses 17 & 18 state, But thanks be to God that although you were slaves of sin, from the heart you became obedient to the pattern of teaching unto which you were handed over, and having been set free from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness. We should take note of the verb Paul chose to use in the clause, you became obedient to the pattern of teaching unto which you were handed over.

Therefore God handed them over to the cravings of their hearts unto impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. They exchanged the truth of God with a lie, they worshiped and served the creation instead of the Creator, who is blessed forever, amen!
Because of this, God handed them over to dishonorable passions, for even their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for that which is against nature. Likewise the men abandoned the natural sexual relationship with women and burned with lust for one another---men committed with men that which is disgraceful---receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And just as they did not consider God as worthy to be known, God handed them over to a debased mind, that they might do things that are not fitting, being filled with all kinds of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice.

The verb is paradidōmi, the same as in Romans 1:24, 26, & 28. Elsewhere, wherever Paul uses paradidōmi in Romans, he uses it with the sense handed over for punishment. This includes handing Jesus over to sacrificial death (see 4:25 & 8:32 also). Of particular contrast, however, is the use of the verb in our present context and the three uses of it in Romans 1. It is evident, then, that Paul's use of the verb in 6:17 is purposefully ironic. As God handed those over to their lusts and cravings to become enslaved to sin, so God has handed us over to become obedient to the pattern of teaching that is found in Christ. What a glorious enslavement! This is true freedom!

Finally, Timotheos, you asked, Does Paul view Torah and Grace as powers (cf., Flesh and Spirit in Gal 5) or salvation-historical periods (cf., Torah and Faith/fulness in Gal 2-3), or both? As I understand what Paul has been arguing throughout Romans, it seems quite reasonable to take Torah and Grace both as powers and as salvation-historical epochs. As we will see, I believe, Flesh and Spirit are also expressions that depict both.

Romans 6.15-18

2006-11-07T08:55:00.000-06:00

[15] What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under Torah but under grace? Banish the thought! [16] Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves as slaves it is for obedience, you are slaves to whom you obey, either to sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness? [17] But thanks to God that you were slaves of sin, but you obeyed from a heart unto the pattern of teaching to which you were entrusted, [18] and having been freed from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness.

Paul stated in v. 14 that sin will not master the Roman Christians, because they are not under Torah but under grace. This statement move Paul to spell out the implications of being under grace. Before he does this though he argues against a possible misconception. It could be reason by those who are no longer under Torah that this would lead to sinful behavior. But as Paul as already hinted at and will show more fully in chapter 7 Torah in and of itself is impotent to restrain sin. In fact, the arrival of Torah brought with it the multiplication of transgression. So to anyone who may conceive of life under grace as a reason to sin Paul says, 'Banish the thought!'. Also in v. 14 Paul moves from death and resurrection language to slavery language (For sin will not master you [14a]), and he fills this language out in vv. 15-18.

The crucial piece here is that emancipation from sin does not lead to freedom from everything and everyone. Rather freedom from slavery to sin brings the Christian into slavery to righteousness, which is ironically true freedom. Paul emphasizes this by showing there are only two ways to live. One can either be a slave of sin, which leads to death or one can be a slave to obedience which leads to righteousness. These are the only two options because on is a slave to what they obey (16b). Paul, by way of thanksgiving, reminds the Romans that though they were at one time slaves of sin, they are no longer that, for they have obeyed from the heart. This statement it seems to me is important for it reminds us that Paul has already talked about a doing of the Law that is not about circumcision but is from the heart (2.14-15). This type of hear obedience does not come from being under Torah but from being under Grace.

One question I have for you, Paulos, is does Paul view Torah and Grace as powers (cf., Flesh and Spirit in Gal 5) or salvation-historical periods (cf., Torah and Faith/fulness in Gal 2-3), or both?

Application Question: Paulos, it seems to me from how Paul has argued in this section and in Romans 6 in general, that Christians should expect to see a discernable obedience in their lives. Because of the already/not yet there will not be perfection until we see Jesus as he is (1 John). But because we are under Grace, and because we are enslaved to righteousness, and because we are dead to sin and alive to God, we should work hard to be obedient, and any other way of living is contrary to the teaching of this passage. What do you think?

Scot McKnight on N. T. Wright on Paul's Letter to the Romans

2006-10-29T05:48:00.000-06:00

If interested, Scot McKnight has been registering blog entries from his readings of N. T. Wright's commentary on Romans in The New Interpreter's Bible Commentary. Begin to read the sequence of entries here.

Comments on Romans 6:11-14

2006-10-19T07:56:00.000-05:00

¹¹ Likewise, you also consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. ¹² Therefore, do not let sin have dominion in your mortal bodies unto the obedience of its cravings. ¹³ Nor present your members to sin as tools for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as ones who are alive from the dead, and present your members to God as tools for righteousness. ¹⁴ For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace.

Paul's reasoning moves from what is true of Christ Jesus to what is true of all who are in Christ Jesus, not, however, as though he has not already drawn out significant inferences in 6:1-10. Now, however, likewise signals that the apostle expressly draws out the theologically analogous inferences. As Christ died and was raised to life, so also you, consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. In my translation, I actually have verse 11 as the closing sentence to the previous paragraph. I begin a new paragraph with verse 12. I notice that others observe the same break.

Pault resumes his imagery of dominion from 5:14, 17, and 21 in Romans 6:6 and 6:9. Yet, in these latter verses, Paul alters the imagery slightly as he merges two imageries. In 5:14, 17, and 21 the imagery employs the verb basileuō. In 6:6 and 6:9 the verbs are douleuein and kurieuei respectively. It seems quite evident that the imagery of dominion (basileuetō; reigning, kingship, lorship, (6:12) derives from use of the same imagery in 5:17 which in turn derives from imagery that first emerges in Genesis 1:28 (katakurieusate; rule over). Yes, the word in 6:12 and in 5:17 is not the same as in Genesis 1:28. Nevertheless, it is a synonym, as we see that Paul shifts to kurieusei in 6:14. In other words, the apostle merges two imageries, that of dominion (reigning; kingship) and that of slavery. Paul transitions from the kingdom imagery of ruler-subject, so prominent in 5:14, 17, 21 to the master-slave imagery that he introduces in 6:6 (douleuein and 6:9 (kurieuei). His shift to the slavery-manumission imagery expands, as we will see, in 6:15-23.

Paul represents reality in Christ with indicative verbs in 6:4-10. Verse 11 transitions to exhortation, in verses 12 & 13 where imperative verbs dominate ("Let not sin reign. . . . Do not present . . . but present yourselves."). In verse 14, Paul returns to the indicative to say, "For sin shall not rule over you, for you are not under the Law but under grace." Paul is saying that sin's mastery or lordship (also sin's kingship) has been broken with Christ's death. Already, we dwell under a new master, the Lord Jesus Christ, as we await the consummation of Christ's mastery when sin will have no more dominion over us at all.

Romans 6.11-14

2006-10-17T06:51:00.000-05:00

[11] Thus also you should consider yourselves to be dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. [12] Therefore let not sin reign in your moral body, so that you obey its desires, [13] and do not present your members to sin as tools of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God, as those alive from the dead and (present) your members to God as tools of righteousness. [14] For sin will not master you, for you are not under Torah but under grace.

Verses 11-14 function as an implication from what Paul says in vv. 9-10. In verses 9-10 Paul talks about how Jesus has died to death and that he has been made alive, and that what he lives he lives to God. Because of Paul connection earlier regarding the inclusion of the individual into Jesus, and thus into the effects of Jesus’ death and resurrection, Paul begins to work out some of the implications for the one who is in Christ.

Thus Paul begins in verse 11 by stating how the Christian should consider himself. The Christian is dead to sin, just as Jesus is dead to sin (v. 10b). Thus, the Christian must see himself this way. No longer is the Christian alive to sin. Rather, the Christian is alive to God. A great reversal has taken place here. As we know from Romans 5.12 everyone in the lineage of Adam is born into death. But now, because of Jesus’ death and resurrection, the one who follows after Jesus is no longer in death, but is alive to God. Because of this, Paul continues that the Christian is not to let sin reign in his mortal body. Though are bodies are still connected to death and sin (for they are not yet resurrected, see chapter 8), we are not to let sin reign in our body, so that we obey its desires. Instead of ruling over creation as God intended at the beginning, rebellion has made us slaves to the very things we were to rule. But in the second Adam, we are no longer mastered by our desires, and thus, we are to bring them into self-control by the power of the second Adam. Also, the Christian is no longer to give the parts of our body to unrighteousness. This is the old way, the way of Adam, the way of sin, the way of death and slavery. Instead of all of this we are to give to God what is God’s. That is, we are to give our body over to God, to present it to him, to use the body we have been given for righteousness and not unrighteousness. In this we see, it seems, what you mentioned regarding 5.19, that is one day just as many were made sinner in Adam, many will be made righteous in the second Adam. Because of this, future reality, the Christian is to be presenting himself to God as tools of righteousness. That is the future reality (eschatology) determines Paul’s instruction regarding present living. Because one day we will be righteous, we are to be living for righteousness now. Paul grounds this, then in the fact that sin will not master the Christian any longer, because the Christian is no longer under Torah, but under grace. As Paul has already intimated in chapters 1 and 2, and will be more fully discussed in chapter 7, Torah did not bring freedom from sin. Instead, Torah brought more sin. But Paul is stating here, those who are in Christ are no longer under Torah, but under grace, and this makes all the difference in the world. A difference that Paul will go on to explain with great care, precision, and punch.

Comments on Romans 6:5-10

2006-10-05T06:58:00.000-05:00

⁵ For if we have been joined together in the likeness of his death, we shall also be joined with him in the likeness of his resurrection. ⁶ For we know this, that our old man was crucified together with him, in order that the body of sin should be abolished, that we should no longer be enslaved to sin; ⁷ for the one who died has been vindicated from sin. ⁸ Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live together with him, ⁹ because we know that Christ, because he was raised from the dead, no longer dies. ¹⁰ For the death he died he died to sin once for all time; and the life he lives he lives to God.

I believe that you correctly make the case that Paul's mention of our being raised, though expressed with the future tense ("we shall also be joined with him in the likeness of his resurrection"), is not strictly future oriented. Surely, given the contextual placement of this future oriented claim, Paul's theological affirmation encompasses the present in some real and significant way. This is surely to be inferred from his assertions in the following verses. The old man is rendered old by the formation of the new man, which is not specifically mentioned but certainly implied.

You properly identify the old man with Adam, though the first Adam is not strictly speaking the old man. Rather, we all, as individuals in Adam, constitute the old man. Hence, there is both a corporate and an individual dimension to the old man.

Of particular interest, in verse 7, is Paul's somewhat unusual use of the verb dedikaiōtai (perfect indicative of dikaioō). Many translate the word as set free (ESV; NRSV; NIV; NASB; etc.). What makes Paul's use of the verb somewhat unusual and difficult to translate is the fact that he connects the verb with a somewhat unusual set of words to follow--dedikaiōtai apop tēs hamartias--justified from sin. Paul's use, here, is similar to that in Acts 13:38-39, which, incidentally, is Luke's narration of one of Paul's sermons--By this one everyone who believes is justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the Law of Moses. In Acts 13:38-39 Luke uses the verb dedikaioō twice: hōn ouk ēdunēthēte en nomō Mōuseōs dedikaiōthēnai and en toutō pas ho pisteuōn dikaiutai. Given Paul's use of dikaioō elsewhere in Romans, it seems unwise to regard use in 6:7 to be out of character with his other uses, as some commentators contend (e.g., Moo, Romans 1-8, 376-377). If Paul had simply intended to say "freed from sin," he could easily have used the same expression that he later uses in Romans 6:18, eleutherōthentes apo tēs hamartia ("having been set free from sin"). John Stott agrees with this (Romans: God's Good News for the World, 177).

Paul sustains his future orientation in verse 8, as you properly identify, as you say, "The emphasis is on the future, but the language (especially where Paul goes in the following verses) seems to include the present." What Paul says in verses 8 & 9 seems to be akin to the point made in Hebrews 7:16 which exalts Christ as having the power of an indestructible life. Christ cannot die again because he has been raised from the dead, Paul says. Hence, we who are in Christ live now and will forevermore live.

Again, verse 10 sounds like the argument in Hebrews 7:27; 9:12; 10:10; etc., where those passages also use ephapax to say that Christ died once for all time. The emphasis is upon the termination of death in the death of Christ (echoes of John Owen's classic, The Death of Death in the Death of Christ). Paul's argument is this: Christ died, ergo, we died; Christ lives, ergo, we live and we shall live. This was expressed long ago in a great old hymn by Christian F. Gellert (1757).

Jesus lives, and so shall I.
Death! Thy sting is gone forever!
He who deigned for me to die,
Lives, the bands of death to sever.
He shall raise me from the dust:
Jesus is my Hope and Trust.

Romans 6. 5-10

2006-10-03T22:10:00.000-05:00

[5] For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, then we will also be of the resurrection. [6] Knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, in order that the body of sin might be nullified, in order that we might no longer serve sin. [7] For the one who dies is justified from sin. [8] And if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. [9] Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, will never die again, death no longer rules him. [10] For what he died, he died to sin once for all. And what he lives, he lives to God.

In v. 5 Paul continues the effects of the individual's inclusion into Jesus by way of baptism. If we have been united into the likeness of Jesus' death by way of conversion (i.e., baptism), then it follows that we will also be united into Jesus resurrection. The mention of resurrection here seems not to only be about the resurrection on the last day, but to include the present effects of the resurrection on those who are included into Jesus' death. That is, the believer in Jesus already is resurrected, and will be resurrected. Paul continues to elaborate in v. 6 regarding the significance of these things on the one included into Jesus. The old man (Adam) of those who are baptized into Christ has been crucified. Calling to mind 5.12-21, the effects of Adam's disobedience on those who belong to him are crucified, because of the work of Christ. Because of his work and our inclusion into his work, those who belong to Jesus no longer belong to Adam, or sin, and we no longer live under the overlord, Sin. In v. 7 Paul seems to be speaking of the individual Christian here in talking about that in death, that is the inclusion into Jesus' death, the Christian is justified (freed) from sin. I know this could go a few ways, but it seems that the emphasis is on what is true of the one in Christ, because of his inclusion into Jesus' death.

In v. 8 Paul goes on to speak a bit more regarding the life-giving effects of Jesus' death and resurrection. Those who have died with Christ will also life with him. Again, here the point seems to be not only the future resurrection, but that the future resurrection is coming to work out in the present. The new creation began with Jesus' resurrection, and because of this, all who belong to Jesus are already raised, and thus will be raised in the last day. The emphasis is on the future, but the language (especially where Paul goes in the following verses) seems to include the present. As Jesus will no longer die, because the death he died he died once for all time, so it is with those who are included in him. Those included in him are no longer under the rule or lordship of death. Paul, then grounds this statement in Jesus' death and resurrection. Jesus' death was a death to sin, that is he lived under the rule of sin, though he did not sin. He entered into the human condition, and died, taking on the penalty for sin. In doing so he was raised to life, and life he lives under the rule of God, which is grace and righteousness.

Comments on Romans 6.1-4

2006-09-29T08:23:00.000-05:00

¹ What shall we say, then? Shall we persist in sin, in order that grace might increase? ² No way! Whoever among us died to sin, how can we still live in it any longer? ³ Or are you ignorant that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? ⁴ Therefore, we were buried together with him through this baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we, let us walk in newness of life.

Timotheos, you properly stated, After stating in Romans 5.20 'Where sin abounded, grace superabounded' Paul anticipates a question that may arise. What is the question? It would seem the reasoning could go like this: if sin increases grace, and grace gives glory to God, then we could glorify God by sinning more and receiving more grace. This is the question. We should, however, recall where Paul raises the same essential question much earlier in his letter, back in Romans 3:1-8. I quote my comments concerning this passage.

What does Paul's argument in 3:1-8 assume but leaves unstated until chapter 9? It is the fact that God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful that he might display his faithfulness to his promise to the patriarchs. God ordained that Israel should be unrighteous in order that he might demonstrate his righteousness in the gospel. God ordained that Israel should be untruthful that he might exhibit his truthfulness in Jesus Christ. God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful, unrighteous, and untruthful in order that God's own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness might shine all the more brilliantly (cf. Rom 9:22ff, "What if? . . .").

This assumption is made most evident in 3:7 in two specific ways--But if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?--first with the supposition if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, and second by the question portion why am I still condemned as a sinner? The supposition links "my falsehood" (which is Paul's way of speaking of Israel's falsehood) as purposefully designed as the occasion by which "God's truthfulness abounds for his glory." This entails God's foreordination which Paul expounds substantively in chapter 9. Notice that the question why am I still condemned as a sinner? anticipates the same question Paul will raise in 9:19, "Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" The question of 3:8 also foreshadows Paul's argument in 5:20-6:1ff, once again underscoring how central to his gospel is his belief in the sovereign foreordaining purposes of God.

In case anyone doubts the veracity of what I have just stated, Paul's words in 3:8 should put objections to rest. He states, And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just! The charge would be pointless, if Paul's argument were not that God ordained Israel's covenant disloyalty (unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, untruthfulness). Why such a slanderous charge? It is because those who hurl the accusation do not believe in the compatibility of God's foreordaining of all things and the accountability of human sinning. In other words, subtle as it may seem to be, Paul is contending that it is vital to his gospel that he preach that God's foreordained purposes for Israel were realized through Israel's unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, and untruthfulness, for God purposed this in order that he might demonstrate his own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness in the gospel, through his Son, Jesus Christ.

I recall the earlier passage and my comments on it to keep before us the fact that God's ordained purposes for the Law and for the Reign of Sin in Death do not warrant the foolish conclusion that Paul's opponents hurled at him, as he recounts in Romans 3:8 and now poses in 6:1-2.

Unlike in Romans 3:8, in 6:1-4, Paul explicates the reason why the seemingly logical question is entirely unwarranted. Your comments are exactly right. I will add a few comments on the matter of baptism, comments that will appear in a forthcoming essay that I wrote for a book to be published in January 2007 (Thomas R. Schreiner & Shawn Wright [editors], Believer's Baptism: The Covenant Sign of the New Age in Christ. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2007).

The expressions in Rom 6:3-4 beckon Christians who view conversion and baptism as separate to acknowledge that the apostle Paul regards them as inseparable though distinguishable as sign and thing signified. Baptism is into (eis) Christ Jesus. Baptism is into (eis) his death. Baptism into death is the means by which (dia, through) we are buried with Christ as Paul says, “Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the Father’s glory, we also may walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:4). Jack Cottrell presses the significance of Paul’s words, “through baptism,” arguing that the apostle envisions no time separation of the symbol, baptism, from the reality accomplished, burial and death with Christ. Paul connects “our baptism and our death to sin together as cause and effect. This does not mean that the water or the physical act as such produces this spiritual effect. Only spiritual working of God himself, which he graciously performs in conjunction with the physical act, can cause us to die to sin and rise again.”

However, if we describe baptism in terms of “cause” we do not mean “effectual cause” but at most “instrumental cause.” It is unthinkable that Paul’s expressions in Romans 6 attribute to the act of baptism with water itself an effectuality that he has already denied to the act of circumcision of the flesh in Romans 2. There he argues that the external rite, circumcision of the flesh, is not efficacious to render anyone a Jew, for the ritual is powerless to enable one to practice what the Law requires. God regards as uncircumcised all who have their flesh circumcised but do not have their hearts circumcised. By way of contrast, however, God reckons as circumcised Gentiles who possess neither the Law nor circumcision of the flesh but yield the fruit of faith as they keep the righteous requirements of the Law. From the beginning, being a Jew (i.e., being of Abraham’s seed) was never merely a matter of wearing the outward sign of circumcision, for an external sign is meaningless apart from possessing the inward reality to which the sign points, in this case the reality of a heart circumcised by God’s Spirit (Rom 2:17-29).

Therefore, it is inconceivable that Paul, who has already mounted this argument concerning the ineffectuality of the outward act of circumcision, would lapse within his same letter to the Roman Christians to represent the outward rite of baptism itself as effecting salvation. At the same time, however, it is equally implausible for us to suppose that Paul’s theologically weighty words of Rom 6:3-4 have no reference to the rite of baptism with water, the rite authorized by Christ Jesus for making disciples. In this passage, the apostle Paul assumes for the sake of his argument that he is appealing to people for whom the thing symbolized and the symbol converged when they submitted to baptism. Thus, he reasons, “Those of us who died to sin, how can we live in it any longer? Or are you ignorant that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We, therefore, were buried with him through this baptism into death in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the Father’s glory so also we will walk in newness of life” (Rom 6:2-4).

Comments on Romans 5.18-21

2006-09-29T08:07:00.000-05:00

¹⁸ Therefore, then, as the transgression of one man brought condemnation to all, so also by the one man’s act of righteousness came the righteousness of life for all humanity. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many shall be made righteous.

²⁰ Now the Law came in with the purpose that transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹ in order that as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe that your comments on the passage are all on target. I will add little to your commentary on the section.

I will draw brief attention to verse 19. It is noteworthy that the apostle does not use the verb dikaioō ("justify") antithetically juxtaposed with the verb katakrinō ("condemn"). His word choice in verse 18 guides his word choice for verse 19. In verse 18 he sets two nouns antithetically: katakrima ("condemnation") and dikaiōsis ("righteousness;" "justification"). So, in verse 19 the apostle contrasts hamartōloi katestathēsin ("they were made sinners") with dikaioi katastathēsontai ("they will be made righteous"). Is it plausible to understand Paul's contrast to be more than a legal antithesis? Is it reasonable to take his antithesis to be at the constitutional level of the individual? In other words, is not the apostle speaking of the transformation of the human character? It seems he is. He is speaking, it seems, of the Last Day when our Adam-corrupted nature will finally be purged of sin and we will be constituted righteous by Christ Jesus.

Timotheos, you wondered whether

Paul seems to be saying here that God testified to his righteousness not only through the structures and patterns in Torah, but also in his design for sin's reign. That is, as I look at this comparison between the reign of sin and the reign of grace, it seems to have the same force as the comparison between the First Adam and the Second Adam, in that just as God designed the Adam to point to Christ, he designed the reign of sin to point to the reign of grace, so that just as Christ was compared Adam, and superseded him, so grace is compared to sin, and supersedes it. It seems strange or queer to think of it this way, but I think this is what Paul is saying. Would you concur?

I do concur. It seems to me that he draws out a necessary theological association between the Adam and Messiah Jesus typological contrast with the the Law of Moses/reign of sin in death and grace/reign of righteousness in eternal life antithesis. Thus, I think that you are correct to say that God designed the reign of sin to anticipate the reign of grace. The Law's jurisdiction, a Reign of Sin in Death, foreshadowed the Reign of Grace unto Eternal Life. The apostle's comments in verses 20 & 21, then, anticipate what he will say next, in Romans 6:1-2, but also they recall what he has said in Romans 3:1-8.

Romans 6.1-4

2006-09-25T20:53:00.000-05:00

[1] What, then, shall we say? Shall we remain in sin, in order that sin might abound? [2] Not at all! We have died to sin, how shall we still live in it? [3] Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into King Jesus were baptize into his death? [4] Therefore, we were buried in him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, likewise we also might walk in newness of life.

After stating in Romans 5.20 'Where sin abounded, grace superabounded' Paul anticipates a question that may arise. What is the question? It would seem the reasoning could go like this: if sin increases grace, and grace gives glory to God, then we could glorify God by sinning more and receiving more grace. To this line of reasoning Paul begins his response in 6.1-4.

Paul states the anticipated question? 'Shall we remain in sin, in order that grace may abound? Paul's answer is a resounding 'No!' Then he goes on in 2b-3 to give an initial reason for his answer. Why can't we continue in sin? Because we have died to sin. How is it that we have died to sin? Those who are baptized into Christ Jesus are baptized into his death (stated in the form of a question in the text). What Paul does here is link the individuals conversion to Christ as a time of transfer of realm, which is pictured here as death and life. The irony here is powerful and astounding. Those born into this life, though we live physically, we live in death. And because of death we sin (Romans 5.12). But those who convert to King Jesus, they are included into the death of Jesus, through baptism, in order that just as Jesus was raise from the dead, those who belong to him will right now walk in newness of life.

There are a few pieces that I think deserve mention here. First, Paul it seems is talking of baptism not in a sacramental way, but in a way that corresponds to the pattern described in Acts. The pattern is that those who repent or believe in Jesus are baptized into his name (this is in keeping with what Jesus says to the disciples in Matthew 28.18-20). Thus, it would seem, Paul is using baptism as a way to signify those who belong to Christ, because the initial and public step of conversion to Jesus is baptism in his name. Thus, baptism is highlighted here, but what Paul seems to have in mind is that baptism refers to conversion.

Next, what is interesting here is that Paul's talk about Jesus' resurrection is not focused on the believer's resurrection in the last day, as it is in other places (1 Cor 15). Rather, Paul's focus is on the already aspect of the resurrection, which is that those who belong to Jesus, who was raised by the glory of the Father, already experience the last day resurrection now, in that we walk in newness of life. Thus, Paul has given at this point one good and compelling reason why those in Christ must not continue on in sin. The reason is because the believer already has the power of resurrection strengthening him not to remain under the reign of sin and death.

Romans 5.18-21

2006-09-19T20:40:00.000-05:00

Well, I am finally back. I am resuming my translation and commentary on Romans, and I look forward to your interaction, Paulos. Though it will lengthen our time through Romans, I am planning on posting on Tuesday. If I have opportunity to post more often, I will. But I think my posts will primarily be on Tuesday evenings. Here goes!

Romans 5.18-21

¹⁸ Therefore, then, as the transgression of one man brought condemnation to all, so also by the one man's act of righteousness came the righteousness of life for all humanity. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many shall be made righteous. ²⁰ Now the law entered in with the purpose that transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹ in order that as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Messiah our Lord.

In this section Paul works out the implications of what he has been arguing, revisits the function of Torah, which he briefly mentioned in v. 13, and sets up his argument coming in chapter 6 regarding the relationship of one who is in Christ to death and sin, namely that we are dead to it.

As we have seen earlier, Paul is continuing his comparison of Adam and Christ, showing the superior nature of Christ over Adam. Adam's transgression brought condemnation for all men, so also Christ's act of righteousness brought righteousness of life to all men. Here we see that those who belong to Adam are under condemnation, but those who are under Christ, because of his one act of righteousness (which seems to focus on his death and resurrection), all who belong to him, though they once belonged to Adam, now receive the righteousness of life. In verse 19 Paul grounds his statement in v. 18 with another comparison, which highlights the grand accomplishment of the Second Adam's obedience, that is just as the second Adam is righteous, those who belong to the second Adam will be made righteous. What is interesting about v. 19 is that is in the future tense. That is, in other places Paul emphasizes that those who are in Jesus are presently righteous. But here in v. 19 the emphasis is on the future aspect of justification, in that on the last day those who are in the second Adam will hear the declaration of righteous. Because of what Christ has done we will be justified in the last day, and because we will be justified in the last day on account of the obedience of the Last Adam, we are already justified.

In verse 20, Paul returns to Torah, which he mentioned in v. 13. Why was Torah given to Israel? Was it so that Israel may boast before God? No! As Paul mentioned in 3.20, Torah brought knowledge of sin. Now Paul mentions the purpose for Torah. It was not simply to anticipate God's righteousness (3.21). It was so that transgression might increase. Why? So that where sin increased grace would superabound. Why? So that the reign of sin might anticipate the reign of grace, which is through righteousness for eternal life through the work and life of Jesus, the Messiah, our Lord.

Paulos, what seems strange to me, is that Paul seems to be saying here that God testified to his righteousness not only through the structures and patterns in Torah, but also in his design for sin's reign. That is, as I look at this comparison between the reign of sin and the reign of grace, it seems to have the same force as the comparison between the First Adam and the Second Adam, in that just as God designed the Adam to point to Christ, he designed the reign of sin to point to the reign of grace, so that just as Christ was compared Adam, and superseded him, so grace is compared to sin, and supersedes it. It seems strange or queer to think of it this way, but I think this is what Paul is saying. Would you concur?

Grace to you my friend, and welcome back to the blog!

Timotheos

Further Comments on Romans 5:14-17

2006-03-13T11:21:00.000-06:00

I am sorry for my tardy return to post this entry to complete my entry way back on March 12. Wow! I did not realize that it was so long. My only excuse is that I've been rather busy. I attended two conferences, presenting two different papers. Well, that's enough about how busy my life is. Everyone's life is busy, I'm rather confident. So, here is my next installment on Romans 5:14-17.

But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one to come.

But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God’s grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Christ has abounded for the many. And is not the sin through one man like the gift? Indeed, for the judgment from one sin resulted in condemnation, and the gift from many transgressions resulted in the verdict of righteousness. For if death by the transgression of the one reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Timotheos, I concur with you that we would be better directed to tranlsate Paul's interrogatives of verses 15 & 16 as expecting an affirmative response than to convert them into non-interrogative indicative sentences as most modern translations do.

I also concur with your sense as to why this is a better direction when you say, "Given what I said above regarding typology, it seems to me that Paul here is working more with comparison between Christ and Adam rather than contrast. Now, of course, there is contrast, for one was obedient, while the other was unfaithful. And there is an a fortiori relationship between the type and the antitype, but I still think there is a great deal of comparison."
Given my earlier presentation concerning an overview of typology, in my Typology Primer, the arrangement of Paul's interrogative questions makes much more sense over against modern translations, such as, the ESV.

Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Paul's reference point is not Adam; his point of reference is Christ. Like most modern translations, followed by most commentators, the ESV makes Adam the point of reference by saying, "But the free gift is not like the trespass." A few scholars opt for our translation (e.g. Chrys Caragounis, "Romans 5.15-16 in the Context of 5.12-21: Contrast or Comparison?" NTS 31 (1985): 142-148).

What is the significance of seeing Christ as the reference point rather than Adam? As I showed in my Typology Primer, Christ is the pattern, the one who cast the shadow; Adam is the shadow, the type cast by the pattern. Christ is not like Adam. Rather, Adam is like Christ. The gift Christ brings is not like the indictment Adam brought. Rather, the indictment Adam brough is like the gift Christ brings.

Certainly we are to recognize contrasts between Christ and Adam and between what comes by way of Christ and what comes by way of Adam. Paul subordinates the contrasts, however, to the comparison that he makes to dominate by way of his two interrogatives: "But is not the transgression like the gift? . . . And is not the sin through one man like the gift?" His interrogatives keep Christ as the point of reference, not Adam.

Timotheos, you raised a good and necessary concern when you said, "Now the problem with seeing the comparison is that it seems odd that God would set up Adam, who was disobedient to be a type of the obedient one." You pointed to Jonah as an example of a prophet who disobeyed but nonetheless served as a type of him who was yet to come (Matt 12:39-41). We could add other examples, too. The bronze serpent that Moses raised up on a pole in the wilderness is another example (John 3:14-15). Normally, the Bible associates the serpent with the devil, but in this case it is not so.

So in verse 15 Paul is showing the correspondence or likeness between Adam and Christ. Christ is not like Adam; Adam is like Christ. God's gift is not like Adam's transgression; Adam's transgression is like God's gift. The a fortiori element of Paul's argument emphasizes the point of contrast. "Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God’s grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Christ has abounded for the many."

Likewise, Paul emphasizes correspondence or likeness between Adam and Christ when he asks, "And is not the sin through one man like the gift?" And, he reinforces the correspondence by saying, "Indeed, for the judgment from one sin resulted in condemnation, and the gift from many transgressions resulted in the verdict of righteousness."

Verse 17 poses an interesting break in the parallel structure that Paul has given up to this point. One might have expected Paul to say, "For if by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will life reign through the one man, Jesus Christ." Paul could have said this, for he says something very much like it later, in 5:21--"so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Paul does not, however, juxtapose death's reign and life's reign. Instead, he juxtaposes death's reign with our reign. He states it this way: "For if death by the transgression of the one reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." In other words, while "death" is the subject of the verb "reign" in the first half of the sentence, "life" is not the subject of the verb "reign" in the second half. Instead, "those who receive . . ." is the subject of the future tense verb "will reign."

Is this not significant? Indeed, Paul underscores a point of contrast between what we receive through the one man, Adam, and what we receive through the one man, Christ. The point of contrast focuses upon reception. Death comes to everyone through Adam. Grace and the gift of righteousness comes only to those who receive the gift. Verse 17 is crucial for a right understanding of verses 18 & 19. The point verse 17 makes is that the recipients of death and the recipients of grace and the gift of righteousness are not numerically identical. We can say more on this later, when we discuss the next segment of chapter 5.

For now, we will focus our attention on verse 17. Here is another crucial feature that should leap out at us from the verse. Paul speaks of "those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ." "Those who receive . . . will reign in life" is an expression that taps into at lease two major biblical themes. First, we all should hear the verb "reign" as an echo of Genesis 1:28ff.

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.” And it was so (Genesis 1:28-30; ESV).

Paul is saying that what we lost through Adam is and will be regained through Christ Jesus. In particular, the dominion we lost through the death we received from Adam is being restored to us through the grace and gift of righteousness we receive from Christ. It is not that life reigns. Rather, Paul says, we will reign in life. Thus, we should hear an echo of Psalm 8:6ff in Romans 5:17, also.

You have given him dominion over the works of your hands;
you have put all things under his feet,
all sheep and oxen,
and also the beasts of the field,
the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea,
whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

Other New Testament passages should come to mind, also, such as Hebrews 2:5-8 (which quotes Psalm 8:6ff) and Revelation 20:4; 22:5, which speak of the consummation of redemption in Christ, when all who "receive the abundant grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life" forever and forever.

It should be evident, then, that Paul's expression--"those who receive . . . will reign in life"--taps into a major biblical theme, the very theme of redemption, redemption from death and loss of dominion to restoration of dominion in life. This reigning, dominion, kingship, or ruling is and will be ours only through Christ Jesus. Do we reign now? Some, such as James Dunn, contend that because Paul's use of "life" (zōē) in Romans usually refers to the Last Day (i.e., it is eschatological in reference), that his use with the future tense verb, "will reign," makes the Last Day the point of reference here (Dunn, Romans, 282). Nevertheless, it becomes evident in Romans 6 that Paul makes it clear that his expression, "will reign in life," does not await the Last Day for its beginning. Already we do reign. Do we reign now fully? No, not yet do we reign fully. Paul will develop how we already do reign later in his letter to the Romans, as we will see in Romans 6:11ff. Before Christ restores our dominion over the earth, he first restores our kingship over ourselves in preparation for kingship over this world we shall inherit along with all Abraham's seed (Romans 4:13; 8:18-27). In Christ, we first gain dominion over ourselves already; then we will receive dominion over the earth in the Last Day. God's New Creation takes place in reverse order to God's First Creation. In the First Creation, God began by forming the heavens and the earth, and God finished by placing Adam in his creation, whose disobedience brought God's curse upon himself and upon all creation. In the New Creation, God begins by placing his New Adam (i.e., Christ Jesus) within his First Creation in order that Christ's obedience might be reckoned to all who receive this abundant grace and the gift of righteousness, and then God will subject the entire new heavens and new earth to this new humanity forged in Christ, in the Last Day (Revelation 20:4; 22:5). The order of God's forming of the New Creation is noteworthy, for it is the First Adam that plunged the entire created order into frustration under the curse. God's New Creation begins with the Second Adam who first redeems all for whom his one act of obedience is made and then will redeem creation itself, in the Last Day, will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God (Romans 8:18-27).

Another crucial biblical theme that Paul taps into with his expression--"those who receive . . . will reign in life"--is that of resurrection. Those who come into death through Adam need to come into life through Christ. This is precisely what Paul speaks of with his expression that creates the imbalance of Romans 5:17. We will reign in life. As indicated in the paragraph above, though Paul's use of "life" (zōē) in Romans usually bears an eschatological reference, even though it bears that sense here, too, Paul makes it quite clear to us in the next chapter that the eschatological times have dawned upon us in that the future Day of Resurrection has become a reality in that Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead. Paul elaborates upon resurrection life, as we will soon see, in Romans 6:1-11. Hence, what Paul says in a somewhat unexpected way in Romans 5:17--"those who receive . . . will reign in life"--so as to pose the imbalance with the first half of the verse, anticipates what he will be elaborating upon in chapters 6-8. The resurrection life has begun for all who are in Christ Jesus. Hence, their reigning has also begun.

Therefore, Timotheos, I believe you wrote rightly when you stated,

Paul speaks of those who belong to the one man Jesus Messiah as reigning in life. Wright mentions this in his commentary (p. 528), and I think it is rich. Because of the gift in the one man Jesus, those who belong to him will reign in life, as a fulfillment of the reign given to Man in creation (Genesis 1.26ff). This idea, like the typology of Christ and Adam, is not simply a return to the original design of the first creation. No, instead it is an escalation. We will reign in life, the life brought about by Jesus the one who was marked out as Son of God by the resurrection of the dead (Romans 1.4).

Comments on Romans 5:15-17--Typology Primer

2006-03-12T12:24:00.000-06:00

Timotheos,

I will divide my comments into two segments. This post will address the matter of typology. The next will comment on the text of Romans 5:14-17. Here, I summarize your four points concerning typology with a few comments of my own and with one additional and fifth observation.

God designed the type with the antitype in mind. Another way to express this is to say that God designed the reality to cast a shadow. The shadow, thus, foreshadows the coming reality. In other words, there is a historical feature to types. In history, the types predate the things that they foreshadow. Yet, in reality, the Messiah, the Son of God, is before Adam, the son of God, who is a type of the one to come (Romans 5:14). Thus, types are historical castings of the antitypical or eschatological realities to which they point or which they foreshadow.
Because God cast the type from the reality (i.e., the antitype), the type functions prophetically as it anticipates its own fulfillment in that which is greater than itself, namely, the reality from and for which it was cast.
Types fill the pages of Scripture, for God invested persons (Adam, Moses, Joshua, David, Sarah and Hagar, Isaac, etc.), events (creation, day/night, flood, exodus, etc.), things (darkness/light, trees, sacrifices, ark, etc.), places (Garden, rivers, plains, mountains), and other this with significances that point to things greater than themselves. On this principle, then, God invested these things with typological significances that anticipate things to come, So, in order to understand Scripture rightly, we need to understand types.
You are exactly right to distinguish what you are talking about from what many call typological interpretation. For some clarification on what I mean by types in distinction from typological interpretation click here to read a comment that confuses types with typological interpretation, and then click on my response (see the end of this entry also for my response). You correctly say, ”Though I know what those who use such a term are intending by the phrase, I think the phrase is wrong-headed. We do not need to do typological interpretation. Instead, we must simply interpret the Scriptures. In the Scriptures, God revealed types, but types do not take a certain science to understand them. Instead, what is required is that we simply read the Scriptures, and read them well.”
I want to add a fifth item to your list of four. The fifth element for rightly understanding types, I believe, is complementary to the first item indicated above. We have mentioned the temporal complexity concerning the relationship between type and antitype, particularly with regard to the relationship between Adam and Christ. Christ, the antitype, whom Paul calls the one who is to come (Romans 5:14), precedes Adam, the type, for Christ is God’s eternal Son and Adam is God’s created son. This complexity, then, requires that we also recognize that there is a spatial dimension to the relationship between types and antitypes. Types are principally earthly shadows of heavenly realities. Then, types are foreshadows of things to come. In other words, Christ is not only the antitype after which Adam, the type, is cast. Christ also is the heavenly Son of God who cast the shadow upon the earth in the form of Adam, the earthly son of God. This is how the Letter to the Hebrews understands the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries. The heavenly sanctuary, as Exodus 25:40, is the pattern after which Moses constructs the earthly sanctuary. The spatial axis—heavenly and earthly—is primary, it seems to me. The temporal axis—what is and what is to come—flows from the spatial axis, as I understand these. Hence, the earthly tabernacle was first the shadow of the heavenly sanctuary. Then the earthly tabernacle was the foreshadow of the sanctuary that was to come. Scripture uses shadow to refer to earthly things in both their spatial and temporal relationships to heavenly things. Hebrews 8:5 designates the earthly sanctuary a copy and a shadow of the heavenly sanctuary. Hebrews 10:1 speaks of the law of Moses as a shadow of the good things to come. For clarity’s sake, we may use the designation shadow to speak of the spatial (heavenly-earthly) relationship of the antitype to the type, and we may use the designation foreshadow to speak of the temporal (before/the coming) relationship of the antitype to the type.

Below, I illustrate how Hebrews 8-10 speak of the heavenly sanctuary as the pattern which the Lord showed Moses on the mountain, the sanctuary the Lord instructed Moses to copy exactly. “See that you make them according to the pattern shown you on the mountain” (Exodus 25:40). The following diagram attempts to show both the spatial and temporal relationships between earthly type and heavenly antitype.

The above diagram also attempts to illustrate the typological relationship between Adam and Christ. As with the heavenly and earthly sanctuaries, so it is with Adam and Christ. Adam stands in relation to Christ spatially but also temporally. We would be seriously mistaken, as you, Timotheos, point out so well, to suppose that because Adam precedes Christ in history that Christ, who comes in the last days, is like or unlike Adam. Exactly the reverse is true, and the way Paul writes his discussion of these things in Romans 5:14-17 also reinforces this important point. Adam is like or unlike Christ. The trespass by Adam is like or unlike the gift that comes through Christ Jesus.

I will post a second note in which I will offer a few further comments on Paul’s text itself. This present note concerns only the matter of understanding biblical types.

I am indebted to Geerhardus Vos for the basic diagram concerning biblical types. See his The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews (Nutley, N.J.: P&R, 1975), 56-57.

Is there not a significant difference between "typological interpretation" and the proper recognition of the presence of divinely authorized types throughout the biblical text? I believe there is. "Typological interpretation" is a flawed and wrong-headed imposition of types onto the biblical text in a backward movement from later text to earlier text, something biblical writers do not do, including the author of Hebrews. To recognize the almost ubiquitous presence of types throughout the Old Testament is simply to read the Bible correctly, to follow God's thoughts after him. We are obviously aided by having the later and clearer disclosure from God, but it is not the later revelation that renders anything a type after the fact. Hosea did not invent the type when he said, "Out of Egypt I called my son" (Hosea 11:1). Rather, by reading the Scriptures, Hosea recognized the divinely cast type in the exodus narrative. Likewise, Matthew did not invent the type when he recognized that Hosea's words found fulfillment (plerōthe) in the events falling out from Herod's murderous decree (Matt 2:15).

The forging of biblical types is not the property of hermeneutics (interpretation). Typology is not the work of readers. We do not get to invent our own types. The author of Hebrews did not get to invent types either. Rather, the casting of types is the property of revelation. It is the work of God who authored the biblical text through his holy men of old, the prophets. Therefore, as readers, we are obliged to recognize the types God cast. We should recognize them by reading the Old Testament forward. Jesus chided Nicodemus and others for failing to recognize that all the Scriptures testify concerning the Christ, largely by way of types. If we do not see types clearly by reading the Old Testament forward, surely we ought to recognize them by reading the Old Testament from the standpoint of fulfillment, by way of divinely authorized analogy, that the latter fulfillment (e.g., Jesus' coming "out of Egypt") brings to light the promissory nature of the type forged by God (e.g., God's bringing Israel, his son, "out of Egypt"). The type was cast by God in his deed and in his word which narrates his deed. The type may be made obvious by the later fulfillment, but the later fulfillment is not what renders the type to be a type. Divine design (intent) in the authoring of the biblical text of old is what renders types to be types.

Divine authorization through the divine authoring of Scripture rendered Israel's experiences types. This is what Paul means when he says, "these things came to pass typologically. . ." (tauta tupikōs sunebainen ekeinois). The adverb tupikōs describes the manner of their coming to pass. In other words, God cast the experiences of Israel to bear his purposed imprint of foreshadowing things to come, things that find their fulfillment for us in Christ at the end of the ages. The apostle Paul, in other words, did not have liberty to invent types. How could he and at the same time expect his hearers to examine the Scriptures to see whether the things he taught them are right and true (Acts 17:11)? Paul's whole gospel is confirmed by the Old Testament. We need to be able to trace out Paul's reasoning from the Old Testament Scriptures, or else how can we be confident that Paul did not pull a fast one on us? If we claim that Paul could do so because of apostolic authority, as Richard Longenecker argued long ago and reiterated again recently with the reprint of his book (Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period), we leave ourselves out on a fideistic lurch, with no reasonable biblical warrant for the things we believe.

With some of the above comments on types in mind, you may find How a Christian Can Read Any Old Testament Passage useful. I would offer some crucial qualifications concerning what this document says concerning types, but this should be obvious to anyone who has already read my comments above.

Romans 5.15-17

2006-03-11T20:56:00.000-06:00

¹⁵ But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God's grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. ¹⁶ And is not the result of the gift like that which resulted from the one who sinned? Indeed, for the judgment from one sin resulted in condemnation, but the gift came from many transgressions, resulting in righteousness. ¹⁷ For if death by the transgression of the one reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Messiah (Romans 5.15-17).

Before I jump into this passage, I do want to mention a significant piece of v. 14, which I did not discuss in my earlier post. At the end of v. 14, Paul says that Adam is a type of the one to come. Now, I am aware of differing theories regarding typology, but I will not be able to get into them here (The reader is directed to Richard Davidson's book Typology in Scripture for a good discussion.) But a few things do need to be said about typology. First, as I see it, typology is God-designed, and it begins with the end in mind. What I mean by this is that God first designs the goal or fulfillment of the type (also known as the antitype), and then designs the type. Thus, in the case of Adam, first it was determined before the foundation of the world that the Son would take on flesh, and be named Jesus, and right the wrongs of the first Adam. Thus, the first Adam was made in the likeness of the second Adam. Because of this, we do not talk about how Christ was like and dislike Adam. Instead, we talk about how Adam was like and dislike Jesus. Second, because the antitype is the model for the type, the type functions prophetically regarding its fulfillment. Thus, for example, the first exodus was the type, which was patterned after the second exodus, and does not stand complete until the second exodus (the type's fulfillment) is complete. Third, these types are revealed all over in Scripture, and to understand Scripture, we must understand types. Fourth, though I just said that we must understand types so that we can understand Scripture, I do not subscribe to anything like 'typological interpretation'. Though I know what those who use such a term are intending by the phrase, I think the phrase is wrong-headed. We do not need to do typological interpretation. Instead, we must simply interpret the Scriptures. In the Scriptues, God revealed types, but types do not take a certain science to understand them. Instead, what is required is that we simply read the Scriptures, and read them well.

Paulos, these are some ideas that I have after doing a good bit of investigation on these things. Are there any places where I need to sharpen my understanding?

Now to the textual comments. Though I am going against all major translations, I think a better way to construe vv. 15 and 16 are as interrogatives expecting an affimative answer rather than indicatives. Here is v. 15: "But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God's grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. " Given what I said above regarding typology, it seems to me that Paul here is working more with comparison between Christ and Adam rather than contrast. Now, of course, there is contrast, for one was obedient, while the other was unfaithful. And there is an a fortiori relationship between the type and the antitype, but I still think there is a great deal of comparison. Now the problem with seeing the comparison is that it seems odd that God would set up Adam, who was disobedient to be a type of the obedient one. But this ought not cause us to many problems, since God also designed Jonah in this way. Because Jesus would come and die and rise again, God designed Jonah to be a type of the one to come, even though Jonah would be a disobedient prophet.

So back to v. 15. In verse 15 Paul is showing the correspondence between Adam and Christ. Indeed the transgression of Adam is like God's grace which abounds to the many from the one man Jesus Messiah. The effects of Adam's rebellion, many dying, are to point beyond themselves to the Last Adam, who because of God's grace would bring a gift that abounds and flourishes to the many. What came in Jesus fulfills and surpasses all that came through Adam. This comparison is continued in v. 16. Adam's disobedience brought condemnation, but the gift came after many transgressions, which resulted in righteousness. The Second Adam and his benefits far out weigh what resulted from Adam, because the gift came after the many transgressions.

In verse 17 a somewhat strange shift is made as Paul grounds his previous argument. Paul speaks of death reigning because of the transgression of the one man Adam. One would think that the fulfillment of this would be that God reigns in life or that Jesus reigns in life (Indeed these ideas are present, but not put to the foreground). Instead of these being in the foreground, Paul speaks of those who belong to the one man Jesus Messiah as reigning in life. Wright mentions this in his commentary (p. 528), and I think it is rich. Because of the gift in the one man Jesus, those who belong to him will reign in life, as a fulfillment of the reign given to Man in creation (Genesis 1.26ff). This idea, like the typology of Christ and Adam, is not simply a return to the original design of the first creation. No, instead it is an escalation. We will reign in life, the life brought about by Jesus the one who was marked out as Son of God by the resurrection of the dead (Romans 1.4).

Well, Paulos, there is much here, and much that I have not mentioned. Please lead me into more and deeper understanding. Grace to you as you ponder and correct!

Comments on Romans 5:12-14

2006-03-05T08:30:00.000-06:00

Welcome back, Timotheos! It has been a long and eventful time for you, a time filled with much grief, but the kind of grief the world knows not.

¹² Because of this, just as through one man sin came into the world and death came through sin, and so death spread to all people, by which all sinned. ¹³ For until the Law, sin was in the world. But sin is not reckoned when there is no Law. ¹⁴ But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one to come.

I believe that you are right to comment on Romans 5:12-21 in shorter segments because of the passage’s complexity and fullness. Again, I find that our translations are quite similar. In particular, you and I have translated Paul’s use of eph hō pantes hēmarton in the same way, even if our words are slightly different. By this, I mean, that while you translated the phrase “upon the basis of this death all sinned” and I translated it “by which all sinned,” we both regard the antecedent of “this” or “which” to be death. For clarity’s sake, I prefer your translation which resembles Tom Schreiner’s translation in Romans (BECNT, p. 274).

Augustine, who did not know Greek well, set interpreters to misreading the phrase eph hō pantes hēmarton as though it were equivalent to ev hō pantes hēmarton. Augustine made two mistakes. First, he misunderstood eph hō as equivalent to en hō, thus his Latin translation, in quo. Second, he misunderstood the relative pronoun to refer to the one man (anthrōpou), Adam, rather than to death (thanatos), thus yielding his translation in whom rather than upon the basis of which.

Following Augustine theologically but not exegetically, most interpreters take the phrase eph hō in a causal sense—so death came to all, because all sinned (cf. RSV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, NASB95, ESV). Many take the all sinned to refer to solidarity with Adam when he sinned. Some who take the phrase causally also take the all sinned as referring to imitation of Adam by sinning as individuals in the likeness of Adam’s sin. The problem with this, as Schreiner rightly observes, is that “it suggests a Pelagian understanding of the relationship between Adam’s sin and the sin of the rest of humanity” (p. 275). Of course, if indeed Paul’s theological formulations in Romans 5:12ff support Pelagius’ teaching, we ought to follow such formulations. The remainder of the passage (5:15-21) is against Pelagius’ view. This includes especially verse 14 which, as we will see below, makes it expressly clear that death reigned over all from Adam until Moses even though they did not sin in the same way that Adam had sinned.

So, I agree with Schreiner that the all sinned does refer to each individual human as personally sinning but also that the phrase eph hō explains the basis upon which every human sins. Every human who comes into this world sins as a result of death which has come to everyone of us, and death came to us all because Adam sinned. Thus, we each enter into the world in the state of spiritual death by virtue of Adam’s sin (sorry about the unintended pun). So, by virtue of entering into the world in the state of spiritual death we all sin.

You, Timotheos, are correct to mention two large-scale divine punishments of human sinfulness by pointing to the time of Noah and that of Babel. In both, humans sinned, but as you point out, the sinning was not in the likeness of Adam’s sin in the Garden. The sinning that incited God’s wrath to drown the vast majority of humanity at the time of Noah and to scatter all humanity by confusing the one language of the one people at Babel was not transgression or trespass, even though it was sin.

Some take Paul’s words in verse 14—But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression—to refer to infants. John Piper, following Jonathan Edwards, takes the reference to infants. This is foreign to Paul’s argument. Paul’s concern in speaking of those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression is hardly to refer to a special subset of humans. Rather, Paul is speaking of all humans from Adam until the Law came in with Moses. Death reigned over every human from Adam until the Law. Why? Death reigned over everyone because death came into the world through Adam. Consequently, even though individuals did not transgress as Adam had, they nonetheless were subject to death. Though they did not transgress, they still sinned.

Unfortunately, Piper and Edwards seem to miss the point, if not also the force, of Paul’s argument. As you, Timotheos, point out well, “The link being that both Adam and Moses heard commands and prohibitions, in other words, both Adam and Moses (representing Israel) were in covenant with God.” Paul’s mention of Moses is just as you suggest, to refer to the giving of the Law to Israel, a divine act that brings about a recapitulation of the giving of the command to Adam in the Garden. Both instances foreshadow the recapitulation that comes with Christ Jesus who is “the one to come” typified or foreshadowed by Adam and again foreshadowed by Israel. Wherein Adam proved disobedient and Israel proved unfaithful, Jesus Christ is both obedient and faithful. Elsewhere, I have already said much concerning Israel’s unfaithfulness and Christ’s faithfulness here, here, and here. Now we must turn to comment upon Adam’s disobedience and Christ’s obedience.

Peace, huios!

Romans 5.12-14

2006-03-04T21:40:00.000-06:00

Because of the complexity of this section, I will take a few verses at a time, and comment on them.

12 On account of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man and death entered through sin, and in this way death spread to all people, and upon the basis of this death all sinned. 13 For until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one to come (5.12-14).

Paul stretches back into the beginning of the world, back to the opening pages of Genesis. How did we get to where we are today? It is on account of one man and one sin. Sin entered the world through one man, Adam. When Adam sinnned a foreign power invaded God's good creation. Sin entered the world. And when sin entered the world, just as God said would happen if Adam disobeyed his prohibition, death entered the world with sin. Becuase of this sin and the entrance of death upon God's good creation, all those who are born into the likeness of Adam are born into a world with death and sin, they are born alleinated from God, in rebellion against him. Because all born in Adam are born into death, all who are born into death sin.

After establishing this, Paul goes on to talk about how even before the giving of the Law through Moses, sin was in the world. All in the likeness of Adam sinned, even before the Law was given. But the sin was not reckoned until the Law was given. This does not mean that sin was still not sin. God punished humanity in the days of Noah (Genesis 6-9) and he brought judgment upon humanity at Babel (Genesis 11). But this sin of these times was not the same type of sin as Adam. It was sin, and still punishable by death, but it was not transgression. Transgression is the specific violation of a command or prohibition. There was a great deal of sin with the generations between Adam and Moses, but there was no transgression.

This section then takes a turn from talk of sin, death, and transgression to discuss the typological correspondence between Adam and Jesus. This will be the subject of the next post.

Until, then, though I have a bit more to chew on because a thought just hit me. Paulos, let me know what you think of this along with the translation and commentary above. Paulos, in v. 14 above Paul makes a link between Adam and Moses. The link being that both Adam and Moses heard commands and prohibitions, in other words, both Adam and Moses (representing Israel) were in covenant with God. Now, I know that is nothing new, but this is what is new for me, or at least deeper. That is, wouldn't Paul's connection here between Adam and Moses give fuller weight to Wright's arguments that Israel was a new Adam, and that God was setting up Israel to answer the problem began with Adam's sin, which is ultimately resolved in the True Israel, Jesus? Do you see what I am seeing? Paul does not mention Noah, even though he heard commands and prohibitions, and even though God made a covenant with creation. Why did he not mention Noah? Because Noah was not given in a way that Israel was. God was calling Israel as a means of righting the wrong of Adam. Granted the connection is implicit, but I think it adds weight to what I hear Wright and others talking about. What do you think?

Thanks for the help, the patience, and the counsel! Grace to you my wise, pater.

Romans 5.12-21 Finally

2006-03-01T13:07:00.000-06:00

I know it has been far too long since my last post. There was another death in the family, and then things with Faith Community Church have been very busy, and this section of Romans is very important and confounding. So, here is my translation, and comments will come soon. Thank you for your patience with this.

Romans 5:12-21

¹² On account of this, just as sin entered into the world through one man and death entered through sin, and in this way death spread to all people, and upon the basis of this death all sinned. ¹³ For until the law, sin was in the world. But sin is not reckoned when there is no law. ¹⁴ But death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s transgression, who is a type of the one to come. ¹⁵ But is not the transgression like the gift? Indeed, for if by the transgression of one the many died, how much more God’s grace and the gift in grace that is from the one man Jesus Messiah has abounded for the many. ¹⁶ And is not the result of the gift like that which resulted from the one who sinned? Indeed, for the judgment from one sin resulted in condemnation, but the gift came from many transgressions, resulting in righteousness. ¹⁷ For if death by the transgression of the one reigned through the one man, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the one man, Jesus Messiah. ¹⁸ Therefore, then, as the transgression of one man brought condemnation to all, so also by the one man’s act of righteousness came the righteousness of life for all humanity. ¹⁹ For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many shall be made righteous. ²⁰ Now the law entered in with the purpose that transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace increased all the more, ²¹ in order that as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Messiah our Lord.

Comments on Romans 5:6-11

2006-01-04T09:41:00.000-06:00

Timotheos,

Welcome back to our blogommentary. How is that for word coinage? A Google search shows no use of blogommentary on the web. If others can use blogumentary, I think we can use blogommentary.) I trust, as you do, that I will be able to be more consistent in making my blogommentary entries as we begin a new year. As I looked at the archives I realized that we have been at this for almost a year. Even so, we have still progressed further through Romans than some popular preachers have in the same number of months.

My translation is very similar to yours. I continue to be amazed at how similar our translations usually are, even though we compile our own translations.

6 For while we were still morally weak, at the proper time, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will seldom die for a righteous person, although for a good person one might dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that Christ died for us while we were still sinners. 9 Much more, then, since now we have been declared righteous by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, since we have been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 And not only this, but we are boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now have received reconciliation.

You rightly point out that this segment of Paul’s argument provides the basis for what he has just affirmed in 5:1-5. In 5:6-11 several of Paul’s words and phrases pick up significant threads of the fabric of his argument as he advances his central thesis that in and through Jesus Christ God has revealed himself to be righteous.

I translated asthenōn “morally weak,” since Paul uses the word to depict our collective spiritually fallen condition. (When I use “collective,” I do not use it as though “individuals” were excluded from this spiritually fallen condition. Not at all.) He uses the same word again in Romans 14:2, “the one who is weak eats vegetables,” where he refers to weakness of faith. Earlier, in Romans 4:19, he uses a verbal cognate when he speaks about Abraham as “not weakening in his faith.” In 5:6 Paul’s concern is to depict humans as in complete spiritual helplessness before God and in desperate need of God’s mercy. In 5:8 he elaborates on this description by saying, “while we were still sinners,” and in 5:10 when he says, “while we were enemies.” The portrayal is graphic—humans who were morally weak, sinners, and enemies toward God.

Now, however, we are at peace with God because of what Christ Jesus has done on our behalf. Before proceeding with the text, notice carefully that Paul tells us that already we are at peace with God as he says in 5:1. Earlier, in Romans 2:10 Paul says that in the Day of Wrath, when God judges us, we who “accomplish the good” will receive “glory and honor and peace.” Peace with God, however, is both now and not yet. For “since we have been justified by faithfulness we already have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” The whole passage of 5:1-11 is heavily punctuated with this already and not yet perspective of salvation as it is in Jesus, as you, Timotheos indicated, and as I will also demonstrate.

Paul’s wording, “at the proper time Christ died for the ungodly” (kata kairon), echoes his earlier statement in 3:25-26 when he speaks of God’s setting forth his Son as the propitious mercy seat “unto the display of his [God’s] righteousness in the now time (en tō nun kairō; cf. Paul’s expression in Gal 4:4, “the fullness of time”—to plērōma tou chronou). Paul’s expressions in 3:26 and in 5:6 hint at Paul’s conviction that Christ’s advent was fully in keeping with God’s purpose and plan. Also echoed in the latter portion of the above-cited expression—“Christ died for the ungodly”—is his use of the same word asebōn, as you also indicate in your comments. Earlier, in 4:5, he uses the singular accusative (asebē) when he speaks of “God who declares righteous the ungodly.”

Paul’s expression, “Christ died for the ungodly,” should probably be translated a little stronger than this, since he uses the preposition huper. “Christ died on behalf of the ungodly” captures the sense better. Paul’s point is that Christ Jesus acted as the substitute, the Righteous One who took upon himself God’s wrath (3:21-26) in order that the ungodly might be declared righteous. Christ was condemned; the ungodly who believe are declared righteous.

As you comment, indeed Paul employs an a fortiori argument, for a still stronger reason, hence, “all the more.” I believe you are right to identify Paul’s use of “by his blood” (en tō haimati) as synecdoche (a part for the whole) for Christ’s bloody sacrificial death. Yet, it seems to me that we should also see a purposefully expressed parallel structure between two portions of Paul’s argument. To build his a fortiori argument, in verse 9, Paul adds the words “much more then” to “having been justified” (dikaiōthentes), the word he picks up from 5:1. Yet, there is another connection between 5:9 and 5:1. Observe the parallel structure.

5:1 dikaiōthentes ek pisteōs eirēnēn echomen pros ton theon
5:9 dikaiōthentes en tō haimati autou sōthēsometha en tē zōē autou

Not only does Paul’s use of dikaiōthentes in 5:9 build upon his use of the same participle in 5:1, but also his phrase in 5:9—en tō haimati autou—parallels his phrase in 5:1—ek pisteōs. It is worthy of note that 5:9 uses the dative following the preposition en, which is likely expressing instrumentality, grammatically speaking. One of the difficulties of what has become the common or traditional understanding of the expression ek pisteōs is that the preposition ek, in its basic sense, speaks of source or basis, grammatically speaking, which has significant implications for our theological formulations. In other words, since the apostle Paul made a grammatical choice to express his own theological formulation concerning our being justified, should we not ponder carefully whether his choosing to formulate his thought this way— dikaiōthentes ek pisteōs—that he is also speaking of source or basis theologically? If the answer to this question is affirmative, it is significant. If in fact the prepositional phrase in 5:9 is truly parallel to that in 5:1, then the two prepositional phrases both speak of the basis of justification. Thus, 5:1 would not speak of “faith” (pistis) as the instrument by which one is justified but of “Christ’s faithfulness” as the ground or basis on which one is justified. As we make explicitly clear in our earlier discussions, this does not nullify the necessity of our believing in God who raise our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead in order that we might be justified (4:24).

If my observations are correct (and I think they are), verse 9 would tend to confirm our translation of 5:1 as “since we have been declared righteous from faithfulness, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained access through this same faithfulness into this grace in which we stand.” Because Paul’s argument in 5:9 builds upon his affirmation in 5:1, it seems right to understand “since we have been justified by his blood” (dikaiōthentes en tō haimati autou) as parallel to and defining of “since we have been justified on the basis of faithfulness” (dikaiōthentes ek pisteōs). In 5:1 and 5:9, then, Paul uses at least three expressions that he has used earlier in 3:25 when he spoke of Christ Jesus “whom God set forth as the propitious mercy seat through the faithfulness that is in his blood . . . for the display of his [God’s] righteousness in the now time, that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous the one who is of the faithfulness of Jesus” (3:25-26). Above, we had already observed Paul’s reiteration of “in the now time” in 5:2 (also highlighted in the text just given).

In other words, Christ’s faithfulness, as we argued in our discussions of Romans 3:21-31, specifically refers to his sacrificial giving of himself on behalf of sinners and on behalf of God’s righteousness. God remains righteous when he declares sinners righteous because Christ Jesus propitiates God’s wrath. (See our earlier discussions.) So, what does it mean to be justified on the basis of Christ’s faithfulness? It is to be justified by Christ’s bloody sacrifice on our behalf. Christ, the Righteous One, died on behalf of the ungodly.

An understanding of “God’s wrath” is essential to right understanding of “God’s righteousness.” Because God is righteous his wrath was formerly and righteously against the ungodly. But now, because of Jesus Christ’s bloody sacrifice, God’s wrath has been righteously displaced by God’s peace (5:1) and reconciliation (5:10-11) because God’s love for us while still ungodly inflicted his wrath upon his Son that he might declare us righteous, those who were ungodly.

Four times prior to 5:9 Paul has spoken of “wrath” (orgē; 1:18; 2:6; 2:8; 3:5; and 4:15). He mentions “wrath” again four more times (9:22; 12:19; 13:4, 5). Each reference speaks of God’s wrath, even if by extension (e.g., in 4:15; 13:4, 5), the wrath to which Paul surely refers again in 5:9. So, the vision Paul’s words incite is that God, through Jesus Christ’s sacrifice, saves ungodly people from his own wrath. This, of course, is precisely the same vision that Paul’s words sketch for us in 3:21-26 when he speaks of God setting forth his Son as the propitious mercy seat (hilastērion) “through the faithfulness which is in his blood for the display of his [God’s] righteousness.”

It is evident that the wrath from which “we will be saved” is God’s wrath that is yet to come. Presently, as we saw in our discussion of 1:18, God is presently revealing his wrath from heaven. I refer to my earlier comments on 1:18. For the sake of convenience I will cite my earlier comments.

But I should also include one more thought. Notice that the text in 1:18 says that "God's wrath is being revealed from heaven." This phrase, from heaven, is not a throw away phrase. The phrase, of course, stands in contrast to two things, one of which is stated in the text. Textually, it stands in contrast to "the revelation of God's righteousness in the gospel. Conceptually, it stands in contrast to "the revelation of God's wrath in the Day of Wrath, which Paul will speak of plainly in 2:5--"you are storing up wrath for yourself for the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God."
So, to state the matter with clarity, the phrase from heaven is one that hints at the present mitigation of God's wrath. The fact that the gospel reveals God's righteousness to us also moderates the force and intensity of God's wrath by holding it at bay until the Last Day. God's wrath is not yet final. God's wrath is being revealed from heaven. But notice also that Romans 2:5 is a rather useful commentary upon Romans 1:18-32 in that while God reveals his wrath from a distance, namely from heaven, the increasing obduracy of those who receive God's acts of kindness, which should lead to repentance (2:4), will intensify his wrath when it comes in full force on the Day of Wrath.

God’s wrath is coming. God’s wrath is presently being revealed from heaven. For all who believe in the God who raised Jesus Christ from the dead (4:24) God’s wrath is averted now because of Christ’s sacrifice. But more than this, Paul insists in 5:9 that we will be saved from God’s wrath when he reveals his wrath with fury in the Day of Wrath (2:5). Salvation is fundamentally defined in terms of the Last Day, the Day of Wrath, when God will pour out his wrath upon all for whom his wrath is presently being stored up.

True as it is, then, that Paul’s teaching concerning justification in Christ Jesus finds its defining character in terms of the Last Day, the Day of Judgment or the Day of Wrath, it is also plainly evident from his letters that his teaching is also that God’s verdict of the Day of Judgment has been spoken over Christ Jesus upon the cross. Therefore, because God has declared his righteous verdict over Christ Jesus, God has also declared the same righteous verdict over all “who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” (4:25). What is the verdict? Belief is “credited to him as righteousness” (4:22-23). If Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, died on behalf of the ungodly, then God also declares righteous everyone who believes.

Regrettably, perhaps owing to the non-Last Day orientation of their understanding of the biblical teaching concerning justification in Christ, some Christian preachers, teachers, and theologians teach that many Christians will be subjected to shame and to profound embarrassment in the day that Christ Jesus will judge them. On the basis of passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:10; 1 Corinthians 3:10-17; Colossians 3:22-25 and similar passages throughout the New Testament, some contend that embarrassment and shame awaits many Christians. This, in my estimation, is dreadfully bad theology. It results from at least three failures to understand biblical matters: first concerning the true nature of justification, second concerning the function of passages that speak of coming judgment, and third concerning the fact that salvation or eternal life is the reward for persevering faith.

First, concerning the true nature of justification, Romans 5:1-11 makes it explicit that God’s relationship toward us who believe is one of peace (5:1) and of reconciliation (5:10, 11). God does not hold in reserve for the Day of Judgment the slightest anger or flash of wrath. His wrath against us who believe was fully received by Jesus Christ when he sacrificed himself on our behalf. Therefore, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Protestant version of Purgatory is acceptable within the Christian faith.

Second, concerning the function of passages that speak of coming judgment, consider 2 Corinthians 5:10. The text reads: “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.” Altogether too many Christians, theologians and pew people alike (the latter largely because of the former), read such passages as if they were more or less clinical or sterile descriptions of the anatomy of judgment that entails individuals who are beyond a shadow of a doubt believers. Such a reading of the passage is seriously misdirected, for 2 Corinthians 5:10 does not describe in some clinical fashion the anatomy of judgment that exclusively entails believers. This notion was largely, if not fully, birthed by Dispensational Pre-Tribulationalism which insists that judgment of believers alone follows the rapture of the church which will occur prior to the Great Tribulation. Such an approach to Scripture handles biblical eschatology as though it were a dissection project. Paul’s passage, however, allows for no such an imposition of a doctrinal system. Paul’s words in 2 Corinthians 5:10 function as a warning of coming judgment. As a warning, then, Paul tells us that how we behave in this present life has eternal consequences. When Christ judges, he will give what is due to each in keeping with what we have done in our bodies. If we have done good, we will receive good. If we have done evil, we will receive just punishment. In Romans 2:5-11, Paul has already addressed what judgment will entail. Here is the passage.

But because of your hard and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who will render to everyone according to his deeds. 7 To those who by persevering in a good work seek glory and honor and incorruptibility, he will return eternal life. 8 But upon those who act out of selfish ambition and who disobey the truth and instead submit to unrighteousness, he will return wrath and anger. 9 Tribulation and distress upon every soul of mankind who brings to completion what is evil, both upon the Jew first and also upon the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who accomplishes what is good, both to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no prejudice with God.

To those who do good, God will give them eternal life, glory and honor and peace. To those who do evil, God will give them tribulation and distress, wrath and anger. The reward for us who persevere in doing a good work is eternal life (2:7) which is also described as glory and honor and peace (2:10).

Third, concerning the fact that salvation or eternal life is the reward for persevering faith, Scripture does not hold out an extra-soteriological reward based on achievement or merits, as some Dispensational theologians and others influenced by them argue. To demonstrate this fully and adequately would require a book, which I may write someday. However, for our purposes now, my comments on Romans 2:5-11 must suffice.

Romans 5.6-11

2006-01-02T13:54:00.000-06:00

Romans 5.6-11
6 For while we were still helpless, yet at the proper time, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will seldom die for a righteous man, although for a good man one might dare even to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more, then, since we have now been declared righteous by his blood, we will be saved from wrath through him. 10 For while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, since we have been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11 Not only this, but we are also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we now have received reconciliation.

Paul begins this piece of his argument with ‘for’ grounding what was previously argued. It seems though that this piece of the argument is not simply grounding verse 5 but all of verses 1-5. So, all of verses 1-5 is true because ‘while we were still helpless, yet at the proper time, Christ died for the ungodly.’ That Christ died for the ungodly reminds us of what Paul wrote in 4.5 ‘God who justifies the ungodly’. This amazing fact, that Christ (God’s appointed king) died for the ungodly, is highlighted even more in verse 7, as Paul reminds us that humanity in general will not easily give up life for a righteous man or good man. It is a truly heroic event when one dies for the sake of a righteous or good man. But God demonstrates his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. We won’t give up our lives for those who may deserve such sacrifice, but we (Jew and Gentile) were sinners when Jesus gave himself up for us. This sacrifice by Christ demonstrates God’s love. It demonstrates God’s love, because no father would give his son even for a good cause. But God gives his Son for sinners.

From this Paul argues from the greater to the lesser. If we are declared righteous by Jesus blood (a synecdoche referring to Jesus’ death on the cross), how much more will we be saved from God’s wrath in the last day. Because we who belong to Jesus already know the God’s verdict, we can be assured that on the last day we will not experience God’s wrath. We will have no shame before him in the last day. This already/not yet tension is expanded in the next verse. Since we are already reconciled to God in Jesus’ death for us, while we were still sinners, we will shall be saved by his life. Reconciliation is the already category. Since we are already reconciled by the death of God’s own Son, we shall be saved by his life. That is, Jesus’ death reconciled us, and his resurrection shall save us. This ‘not yet’ will be explored more fully in chapter 6 and in chapter 8. In verse 11, the echoes of ‘boasting’ are heard again. We do not boast in the Law, we boast in the glory of God (5.2), and this is specified in v. 11 as a boasting through our Lord Jesus Christ. As Wright states, we “Celebrate the reconciliation between the creator and those who bear the creator’s image” (Wright, Romans NIB 10, p. 520). This reconciliation has taken place in one man, and one man alone, Jesus who is Lord and King.

Paulos, please fill in holes here where necessary, and if you would, would you please talk a bit about not experiencing wrath on the last day. I hear from many different Christian preachers and teachers that Christians will experience some form of wrath/judgment/shame on the last day. Though this idea is popular it seems to fly in the face of this passage and others like it. Do you have any thoughts on this?

My Absence

2006-01-01T07:35:00.000-06:00

I regret greatly that I have not posted in some time on this blog. The posting will begin again on Monday, January 2nd and continue from there. The large reason for my absence is that my 86 year-old grandmother died two weeks ago. It was a sweet passing, falling to sleep while I prayed for her and entrusted her to our Lord to raise her up on the last day. At her death her sons and their wives were around her, along with me and my family. She is now buried and with her Lord as she waits with others who have fallen asleep waiting for King Jesus to return.

Above is a picture of the headstone. She is buried next to my grandfather, who preceeded her in death in 1990. I long for the day, when Jesus returns and transforms all who belong to him, so that we will be like him on a new, snake-free earth.

Comments on Romans 5:1-5

2005-12-10T11:45:00.000-06:00

Timotheos and All Our Readers,

I am sorry for my long absence from the blog. Final preparations on my paper, "The Ox and the Man: Law as Wisdom?", which I presented at the Evangelical Theological Society meeting in Valley Forge, PA, plus attendance at the ETS conference and two other conferences (Institute for Biblical Research & Society of Biblical Literature), all consecutive in one week in November, kept me quite occupied throughout that month. In case my paper title escapes some of our readers (which I rather doubt will likely happen), I addressed Paul's use of Deuteronomy 25:4 in 1 Corinthians 9:8-9. Relapse of a respiratory infection set in on Thanksgiving Day. That laid me low for several days, setting me behind in my daily routines and obligations. It is not as though I have returned to a normal schedule, however, because all those events put me well behind. Nonetheless, I do think it right to offer a response so that you may continue on with your postings in some reasonable order and timeliness.

I like your translation, including Romans 5:1, as you took dikaiōthentes ek pisteōs as "having been justified from faithfulness" as a reference to the ground upon which we are justified, namely "Christ's faithfulness," rather than as a reference to the means by which we are justified, namely "faith in Christ." Of course, you do not deny the truthfulness of the latter expression, that it is "through faith in Christ" that we are justified before God, as also our thoughtful readers will surely remember from our previous discussions. Instead, as you and I have made clear in previous postings, the exegetical argument and the textual evidence have persuaded us that the apostle Paul's deepest interest in his argument in his Letter to the Romans is that Christ's steadfast faithfulness that brought him to sacrifice himself upon the cross, the righteous one for unrightous ones, reveals that God is truly righteous to keep his promise to Abraham and to the Patriarchs but also that God is truly righteous in maintaining his justice by being at once the righteous one who declares righteous those who are not righteous (cf. Rom 3:23-26 & Rom 4:6-8).

I also concur with your text-critical decision that the verb that we should more likely accept as original to Paul's letter is echomen ("we have" [indicative]) rather than echōmen ("let us have" [subjunctive]). I will add one further exegetical comment on verse 1, particularly concerning echomen pros ton theon. The prepositional phrase beginning with pros is an idiom that depicts closeness of relationship. Ordinarily, pros followed by an accusative noun signals "motion toward." However, when the accusative noun is a person, the expression speaks of close relationship, such as we find in John 1:1--kai ho logos ēn pros ton theon (cf. 1:2 also)--"and the Word was with God." The point, then, is that "through our Lord, Jesus Christ," we have come into this peaceful relationship with God. God holds us no longer as in contempt of court and under his wrath (cf. Rom 1:18ff). Paul's mention of the former hostility between God and us is fairly remote, now, in his letter. He will mention "God's wrath" again, very shortly (5:9), yet when he does, his perspective then will be upon salvation from the future manifestation of God's wrath in the Last Day.

Mention of being saved through Christ from the wrath that is coming, of course, necessitates that we pause to linger for a moment concerning the already but not yet accent that Paul gives this passage. Already we are justified from Christ's faithfulness, so, by definition as Paul has laid it out in Romans 3:23-26, God's wrath has been propitiated toward us so that we no longer dwell under God's wrath. Not yet, however, is our salvation brought to its culmination or consummation. Thus, we await the day when we shall be saved from God's wrath.

Since I have written and published on this passage, I will quote my own words, if you don't mind.

Paul contends that as believers, because we already stand justified in God's grace, we rightly boast with two orientations. First, our exultant rejoicing casts a confident eye to our eschatological "hope of the glory of God" and the praise that God will give to all who are circumcised by the Spirit (Rom 2:29). This glory, of which all fall short (Rom 3:23), seems to be the same "glory and honor and immortality" that believers seek (Rom 2:7, 10) and sinners spurned (Rom 1:23).

Second, our exultant joy looks with confidence upon our present afflictions, for Paul says, "We know that affliction brings to completion perseverance; likewise perseverance brings to completion tested character, and tested character yields hope. And this hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who was given to us" (Rom 5:3-5). It is significant to note that Paul does not insert a condition into this unbroken chain. It certainly is true that one will only advance from affliction to hope if one perseveres in faith through present afflictions. However, why does Paul not include such a condition? Paul leaves a conditional clause out because his purpose is not to place before us a conditional promise, as in Romans 2:6-10, but an unconditional assurance that everyone of us who already stands justified in God's grace will also participate in the glory that is not yet ours but for which we seek and hope. For a reader to insert a condition here would invalidate the apostle's intention. . . . Paul reinforces the certainty of this hope by reiterating that it is entirely grounded on Christ's death for us who were ungodly and sinners (Rom 5:6-8). Then he draws his conclusion that moves from that which is certain to that which is even more certain (an a fortiori argument) when he argues, "Much more, then, since we have been declared righteous by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him. For while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son; much more, since we have been reconciled, we shall be saved by his life" (Rom 5:9-10). (See Thomas R. Schreiner & Ardel B. Caneday, The Race Set Before Us: A Biblical Theology of Perseverance & Assurance [Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 2001], 167-168).

Contest--Do you know?

2005-11-29T14:59:00.000-06:00

Have you noticed the new blog banner? Can you read the text on the foreground and the background? What does the foreground text say? How much of the background text can you read? From where in Paul's letters does this text come? We would love to read your responses.

We will be back at blogging soon.

Romans 5.1-5

2005-11-01T20:57:00.000-06:00

Paulos,

Thank you for your great help with Romans 4. Since you placed your translation of the remainder of chapter 4 in your post, I will simply move on to chapter 5, unless any major queries arise that would bring us back to chapter 4. I trust you are okay with this. If now we can go back. But until then, I will press on. Here is my translation of chapter 5:1-5 with commentary. I await your thoughts. Peace to you.

Romans 5:1-5

¹ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous from faithfulness, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, ² through whom also we have obtained access through faithfulness into this grace in which we stand, and we boast in the glory of God. ³ Not only this, but we boast in sufferings, because we know that affliction brings to completion perseverance, and perseverance brings to completion character, and character brings to completion hope. ⁵ And hope does not dishonor us, because God’s love has been poured out into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

With Paul beginning this sentence with ‘therefore’ and with the mention of ‘declared righteous from faithfulness’, Paul is bringing his argument from chapters 3-4 to a close, and shifting to the implication(s) of being declared righteous from faithfulness. Since God has justly declared those who belong to Jesus the faithful one to be righteous, because of Jesus’ faithfulness, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. This peace with God is what was promised in the OT for God’s people in the last days, and Paul is saying that those who belong to Jesus, who follow in the footsteps of Jesus, whether Jew or Gentile, now have the peace which was promised (As you can tell from my translation, I am persuaded that the Greek verb for ‘we have peace’ should be indicative and not subjunctive. I trust you see things this way as well). This peace comes through Jesus who is Lord and Christ (King). With the mention of peace and the statement of the agency of that peace, Jesus, Paul is reminding us of the gospel of God, which concerns his son. That is, in the OT, specifically in Isaiah, David was to be the agent of peace, and Jesus, who is according to the flesh a descendent of David, is the one through whom God’s peace comes. Jesus is the long expected Davidic ruler.

It is through Jesus that we who have been declared righteous who have obtained access into the grace in which we stand. Our rebellion with God has ended, and he has brought peace, and we also stand in his grace, no longer under his wrath. With the wording of ‘obtained access’ probably comes cultic themes in that we have now gained access into the dwelling of God, into the holy of holies. Because of all of this, we now boast in God. Instead of boasting in the Law (2:27, 3:27), we boast in the glory of God. This is a great reversal (!), for Paul discussed in Romans 1:18ff that humanity in the pattern of Adam has exchanged the glory of God (1:23) for a image. But now we who are at peace with God boast in the glory of God. God is remaking humanity through Jesus the faithful one.

But we who are at peace with God not only boast in the glory of God, we also boast in our sufferings. This it seems to me means that our sufferings, just like the glory of God is the object of our boast. This, as Wright, claims is a counterintuitive move by Paul, since it would seem that if we have peace with God we would not have tribulations and afflictions. Instead of peace with God and suffering being opposites, they are held together here. This is not on account of afflictions being good in themselves. Rather, we boast in afflictions because of what affliction produces. Affliction brings to completion perseverance, and as we persevere, our character is tested and shown to be true, and this brings to completion hope. The hope would seem to be the hope of the resurrection, but Paul has not fully discussed this, and he will not bring these ideas to completion until chapter 8. It would seem though that as we endure affliction our character is tested (cf. James 1; 1 Peter 1), and hope grows in us as we await the redemption of our bodies and the redemption of all creation at the return of Jesus. This hope, then, is a sure hope, and this hope will not dishonor us, because this hope will one day be realized. We know that this is the case because we have God’s love (here the genitive should be subjective just like ‘God’s righteousness’, ‘God’s wrath’, and ‘Jesus’ faithfulness’), poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit, who was given to us. This too is a theme that Paul will bring to a close in Romans 8. The idea though at this point is that the Spirit is the love of God poured out to us, and because we have the Spirit, we know God’s love, and this also shows us that if God has given us his Spirit, the hope will be realized, and thus we will not be put to dishonor on the last day before God.

Comments on Romans 4:17-25

2005-10-29T20:31:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Since, as you have properly indicated that Paul grounds his statement of verse 17 in what he has to say in verse 16, it may be helpful to recall what immediately precedes this segment. But to do so, it is right that we back up to the previous segment. Here Paul says,

13 For the promise to Abraham and to his seed did not come through the Law—the promise that he was heir of the world—but through the righteousness of faithfulness. 14 For if the heirs are from the Law, then this faithfulness is made void and this promise is nullified. 15 For the Law brings wrath to completion, and where the Law is not, there is no transgression. 16 On account of this the promised inheritance is from faithfulness, in order that it might be in keeping with grace, for the purpose that the promise might be confirmed to all the seed, not only to those who are of the Law but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all,

God fulfilled his promise to Abraham not through the Law of Moses (ou dia nomou) but through the righteousness of faithfulness (dia dikaiosunēs pisteōs). Whose pisteōs is this? Is it Abraham's? Is it those of Abraham's faith(fulness) (ho ek pisteōs Abraam, 4:16)? Is it Christ's faithfulness (pistis Christou; see earlier discussions)? The reading of the text that has convinced me as most likely is the one that takes the reference as Christ's faithfulness. Hence, Paul argues, that if the heirs of the promise are those who belong to the Law, then Christ's faithfulness is rendered void and God's promise to the patriarchs is nullified. Why would Christ's faithfulness be rendered void and the promise be nullified? It is because the Law brings wrath to its accomplishment, and where the Law does not exist neither is there any transgression. This explains why the promise comes from faithfulness, in order that the promise may also be in keeping with grace, for the purpose that the promise might be confirmed to all Abraham's seed, not only to those who are of the Law (Jewish believers) but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith (Gentile believers), Abraham, who is the father of us all.

From this, then, Paul continues by saying,

17 just as it is written “I have appointed you to be the father of many nations” in the sight of him whom he believed, namely God who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence. 18 Who against hope believed on the evidence of hope, in order that he would become the father of many nations in accordance with what was spoken, “So shall your seed be.” 19 And he did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead, since it was nearly one hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 But he did not waver with unfaithfulness but he grew strong in faith, by giving glory to God 21 and by being fully assured that what God promised he was also able to accomplish. 22 Therefore also “it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” 23 But “it was reckoned to him” was not written for him alone 24 but also for us, to those who will be reckoned, that is to those who believe upon the one who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead. 25 Who was delivered up on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteousness.

As you will notice, I have included verses 23-25 also. The reason for this, I trust, will become evident shortly, after a few preliminary comments.

Paul's "just as it was written" (kathōs gegraptai) equates his explanation (Abraham, who is the father of us all, vs 16) with his OT citation, "I have appointed you to be the father of many nations" (Gen 17:5). Paul's words, in the sight of him whom he believed, reminds one of the words used by the writer to the Hebrews who said, "For when God made a promise to Abraham, since he had no one greater by whom to swear, he swore by himself, saying, “Surely I will bless you and multiply you." Yet, Paul adds a further description of God by saying, namely God who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence. In other words, Paul is alluding to creation, for what God promised to Abraham was akin to that which he did at the beginning when he called matter into existence. God's promise to Abraham, then, is a promise of new creation.

What follows verse 17, then, from verse 18 through verse 22 underscores the situation into which God spoke his promise, when he said, "I have appointed you to be the father of many nations." What was the situation? It was one of deadness. Abraham against hope believed on the evidence of hope, in order that he would become the father of many nations in accordance with what was spoken, “So shall your seed be.”. Consider Abraham. Though God had made his promise many years earlier, Abraham's faith in the God who promised did not weaken when he pondered his own body which was "already as good as dead, since it was nearly one hundred years old." But Abraham was not the only one who was "already as good as dead." Consider the deadness of Sarah's womb. Instead, of wavering with unfaithfulness, Abraham grew strong in his faith in God who promised as he gave him the glory, being fully assured that God would bring about what he had promised. Hence, Paul says that God's verdict over Abraham, as announced in Genesis 15:6 at the time of the cutting of the covenant, is fittingly spoken over Abraham's perseverance in his trust in God who promised. So, Paul says at this juncture in his account of Abraham: "Therefore also 'it was reckoned to him for righteousness.' So this is the situation of deadness into which God spoke his promise, through which Abraham persevered in believing the God who promised, and at long last God brought forth Isaac as his token of promise concerning the seed.

Now, given this situation of deadness as the backdrop, Paul says, "But 'it was reckoned to him' was not written for him alone but also for us, to those who will be reckoned, that is to those who believe upon the one who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead. Who was delivered up on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteousness." Take note of the correlation Paul has drawn between the one situation of deadness from which Abraham believed in God who spoke his word of promise and the last days situation of deadness out of which we "who believe upon the one who raise our Lord Jesus from the dead." As Abraham believed God who promised life to come from deadness, so we believe God who has delivered life from deadness. Abraham believed the promise God had not yet delivered; we believe the proclamation God has in fact brought forth--life has come out of deadness. Here, the new creation began! Here, at the empty tomb God's new creation began as God fulfilled his promise to Abraham: “I have appointed you to be the father of many nations. . . . So shall your seed be.” Thus, the words 'it was reckoned to him' were not written for Abraham alone but also for us. Belief in the God "who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence" is reckoned to us for righteousness just as Abraham's faith was reckoned to him for righteousness long ago. The settings have changed. The persons are different. The situations of deadness are not the same. The thing believed is also different. Nevertheless, the God "who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence" is the same. It is belief in this same God, Abraham's God, that is reckoned for righteousness. For Abraham, the thing believed was the promise of the seed that would come forth from deadness. For us, the thing believed is the proclamation that Abraham's Seed has indeed come forth from deadness, namely the tomb. We believe upon the one who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead, and God reckons our faith for righteousness just as he did with Abraham our forefather.

Timotheos, I think your "aside" is quite close to what I would say concerning why there is no mention of Abraham's lies, of his agreement with Sarah to take Hagar to assist God in fulfilling his promise, or of any other sin. It seems to me that Paul grasped the significance of God's reckoning Abraham's faith for righteousness. This is God's already announcment of his not yet Last Day verdict. Hence, silence concerning any of Abraham's sins and instead the repeated declarations that he did not weaken in faith, he did not waver with unfaithfulness but he grew strong in faith, and being fully assured that what God promised he was also able to accomplish underscore the true nature of God's verdict of the Last Day which is already his verdict for all who believe in the God who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence. God's verdict of the Last Day is a reality now to all who believe in God who raised our Lord Jesus from the dead.

Paul adds one final statement before transitioning from Abraham. Speaking of Christ Jesus, he says, Who was delivered up on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteousness. In Romans 4:25 Paul seems deliberately to allude to Isaiah’s fourth “servant song” when his unusual phrasing resembles Isaiah’s use in 53:6 and 12. Like Isaiah, Paul uses “being handed over” (paredothē), which is hardly the most natural way to speak of Christ’s sacrificial death. Also, Paul’s expression, “who was raised because of our justification,” seems to allude to Isaiah 53:11 (LXX) which depicts the servant as “justifying the righteous.” Given Paul's use of paradidōmi (being handed over) in Romans 4:25, it is quite reasonable to understand an allusion to his earlier use of the same word, paradidōmi, three times in Romans 1:24, 26, & 28, when Paul said, God handed them over . . . to impurity . . . to dishonorable passions . . . to debased minds. Though N. T. Wright's point of comparison between Romans 4:17-19 with Romans 1:20-27 may have some legitimacy (The New Interpreter's Bible, X, p. 500), it seems to me that the linkage has to be made also through Romans 4:25 with Romans 1:24, 26 & 28, as N. T. Wright later does (NIB, X, pp. 502-507). In other words, it seems to me that Wright placed his comparitive chart too early in his commentary. It seems to me that it should have come at the close of the section because of the too obvious linkage of paradidōmi in 4:25 with paradidōmi in 1:24, 26 & 28.

Addition (11/10/05): Michael F. Bird (Lecturer in New Testament at Highland Theological College, Dingwall, Scotland) raised a question in the comments feature that has prompted me to do some more pondering of Paul's linkage of resurrection and justification.

The focus of my further considerations will be on Romans 4:25 (Who was delivered up on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteousness. ) and the Old Testament backdrop of Isaiah 53:11--"Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the Righteous One, my Servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities" (ESV). However complex the text of Isaiah 53:11 is in its transmission, particularly in the LXX, it seems evident that the Servant of the Lord, the Righteous One, is delivered over on our account and by his sacrifice he justifies many by bearing our iniquities. He will see the result of the suffering of his soul on behalf of others and be satisfied. The DSS and the LXX say that "he will see the light" (cf. NIV).

In Romans 4:25, then, Paul says that Jesus Christ was delivered up on account of our trespasses and was raised on account of our being declared righteousness. This seems to reflect Isaiah 53:11, then, in that Jesus Christ, the Righteous One, took upon himself our trespasses and by his knowledge (covenant faithfulness?) justified many. For justifying many by his sin-bearing death, then, the Lord's Righteous One is granted an inheritance, resurrection life, spoken of in the beginning of 53:11 and also in 53:12.

All this, then, prompts me to return to my altogether too brief comments on Paul's thesis statement in Romans 1:16-17, where he cites Habakkuk 2:4. There I said,

So, what then, of pistis in the quotation from Habakkuk 2:4? I take it as a reference to Jesus Christ's faithfulness, his steadfast loyalty to his Father's covenant mission, namely his self-sacrifice that exhibits the ground upon which God shows himself to be righteousness when he justifies sinners.
I believe that Habakkuk 2:4 is messianic, as is obvious from its use in Hebrews 10:37ff. "The Righteous One" is a NT title for Jesus (e.g., Acts 3:14; 7:52; 22:14; 1 John 2:1). Of course, the title is used in Isaiah 53:11 also, "my Righteous Servant." So, in my estimation, the burden of proof should be on all who reject the titular use of ho dikaios in Romans 1:17.

So, in Romans 1:17, I understand Paul's quotation of Habakkuk 2:4 to be tightly linked to Isaiah 53:11 both through the mention of my Righteous One and through mention of resurrection as the Righteous One's inheritance for faithfulness (shall live by his faithfulness, Hab 2:4; he will see . . . and be satisfied, Isa 53:11). All this, of course, also ties back to Paul's assertion that this Righteous One was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 1:4). Jesus Christ's resurrection is his own justification (cf. 1 Tim 3:16; "justified by the Spirit") because his sacrifice was our justification. Our justification, then, was accomplished in his bearing our trespasses.

I Forgot A Piece Regarding 4.17-22

2005-10-27T21:20:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
I wanted to mention this because I know Wright makes a point about this, and I am wondering what you are thinking about this. Wright sees that this section in the letter, specifically 4.17-19 is Paul's answer to the problem raised in 1.20-27. As I understand it, he sees that God gave over humanity to depravity in response to idolatry in 1.20-27. This, of course, is what we also argued. But then he sees that 4.17-19 answers the giving over in chapter 1. That is, in response to idolatry God gave humanity over to depraved actions with their bodies, but because of Abraham's faith in the promise of God, what was dead was given life. Any thoughts about this?

Thanks!

Romans 4:17-22

2005-10-27T21:19:00.000-05:00

In verse 17 Paul roots his statement in verse 16 regarding Abraham as the father of both believing Jew and believing Gentile in Genesis 15:5. God who spoke to Abraham is the one who gives life to the dead and calls non-existent things into existence (Possibly a way of talking about Gentiles, that is those who were formerly dead not being made alive). It is the life giving God whom Abraham believed. Abraham believed God’s promise of bringing life from death, while looking squarely at death and believing God’s promise. He hoped against hope. He believed that his seed would be as numerous as the stars of the sky. He believed God’s promise to him: ‘so shall your seed be’. He believed God’s promise even though his body was a good as dead, since it was one hundred years old, and he saw the deadness of Sarah’s womb, yet he did not weaken in his faith. Abraham, though he committed sins in regard to the promise of God, is described by Paul as one who did not weaken in faith, one who was convinced that what God promised he was also able to do.

As an important aside, why does Paul not mention Abraham’s unfaithfulness? It seems the reason is that Paul is giving God’s end-time assessment of Abraham right now (Hebrews 11 is similar). That is, because Abraham persevered in his faith (the use of ‘therefore’ is thus important here), God reckons it to Abraham for righteousness, and with being reckoned for righteousness the sins committed by Abraham are no longer mentioned, since Abraham’s persevering faith is reckoned to him for righteousness by God.

It would seem then that Paul shifts here to flesh out also what it looks like to be of Abraham’s faith. As Abraham believed that God gives life to the dead, those who belong to Abraham’s faith believe the same, that God gives life to the dead. We believe that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that he will raise all those who belong to Jesus. Just as Abraham believed the promise given to him, we believe the promise given to us. Just as this unwavering faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness, our unwavering faith will be reckoned to us for righteousness.

Translation of Romans 4:17-22

2005-10-27T14:16:00.000-05:00

Here is the translation for now. I will post more very soon.

17 as it is written, I have appointed you the father of many nations in the presence of him whom he believed, namely God who gives life to the dead and calls things that do not exist into existence. 18 Against hope he believed in hope, so that he might become father of many nations according to what was spoken, so shall your seed be. 19 And not weakening in faith, he considered his own body as dead (since it was one hundred years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. 20 Concerning the promise, he did not waver in unfaithfulness, but he grew strong in faith, giving glory to God 21 and being convinced that what God promised he was also able to do. 22 Therefore also it was reckoned to him for righteousness.

It Has Been Too Long

2005-10-27T07:38:00.000-05:00

To Paulos and to all our readers,
I will be posting today on the next section of Romans. I have been involved on another blog working through the Bible and alcohol. I will pick up steam today. Thank you for your patience.

Comments on Romans 4:13-16

2005-09-14T19:43:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

I am sorry for my long delay to post my comments in response. I have been delayed on account of the busy schedule that comes with the beginning of the new academic year. Now that I have settled in to my schedule, I can take several minutes to offer a response.

Your translation and mine are so close to one another.

¹³ For the promise to Abraham and his seed that he would be heir of the world does not come through the Law but through the righteousness of faithfulness. ¹⁴ For if the heirs are of the Law, then this faithfulness is made void and the promise is nullified. ¹⁵ For the Law brings to completion wrath. But where there is no Law, neither is there transgression. ¹⁶ On account of this the promised inheritance is from faithfulness, in order that it might be according to grace, for the purpose that the promise might be confirmed to all the seed, not to those who are of the Law alone but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all, ¹⁷ just as it is written “I appointed you to be the father of many nations” in the sight of him whom he believed, namely God who gives life to the dead and calls non-existing things into existence.

Paul contrasts two things. He says that the promise that God made to Abraham does not come "through the Law" (ou dia nomou) but that it comes through "the righteousness of faith(fulness)" (alla dia dikaiosunēs pisteōs). As we have been noticing throughout our previous considerations of Paul’s phrases, we have to make an interpretive decision concerning this contrast. Is Paul’s contrast between these two: “through the Law of Moses” and “through the righteousness that comes by faith, i.e., human faith”? Or does Paul contrast something else? How we understand the expression alla dia dikaiosunēs pisteōs depends heavily upon how we have handled similar expressions prior to this mention in Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Timotheos, I think that you are correct to understand the expression as referring to “the faithfulness of Jesus Christ” as the agency through which the promise God made to Abraham comes.

Paul is continuing with a theme that he argues in Romans 2 and 3, namely, that the Law cannot be the vehicle through which God revealed his righteousness because he did not design the Law for this purpose, given humanity's sinfulness. Yes, the Law promised life (Lev 18:5), but it could not deliver the life that it promised because the Law could not secure the obedience it commanded, as the history of Israel makes plain. Therefore, Jews who boast in the Law have misplaced their boast and trust, for their failure to do what the Law required is proof that they dwell under the Law's indictment. So, the Law’s function was, as Paul summarizes in Romans 3:19, to silence every human’s objection against God’s justice and to hold the whole world accountable to God. Hence, as Paul succinctly expresses the matter now, “the Law brings to completion wrath.” This expression (ho nomos orgēn katergazetai) makes the case that God designed the Law to disclose an aspect of his righteousness, but not his righteousness as he reveals himself in the gospel as we have already seen in 3:23-26, God, the Righteous One who declares righteous those who believe. The verb Paul uses, katergazō, is one that makes his point more emphatically than if he had used ergazō or poieō. His verb underscores the Law’s purpose, “to bring wrath to its accomplishment or completion.” The Law, therefore, exposes human sinfulness and actually exacerbates humanity's plight (5:20-21) so that when God revealed his righteousness to keep his promises made to the patriarchs long ago, his righteousness is magnified all the more in the cross of Christ.

Thus, the Law serves God’s promise made to Abraham and reaffirmed to the patriarchs. The Law has no power to nullify (katērgētai) God’s promise because God did not give the Law as the vehicle through which he would fulfill his promise, i.e., give the inheritance. The Law has no power to empty faithfulness (hē pistis) of its effectiveness (4:15) because the Law's function reveals the righteousness of God's wrath not the righteousness of God's fulfillment of the promise, Paul's thesis throughout his Letter to the Romans. So, the heirs of the promise are not identified by belonging to the Law (hoi ek nomou klēronomoi, 4:14). Instead, the promise’s source is faithfulness (ek pisteōs, 4:16) in order that it might be in keeping with grace (kata xarin). And God made it this way that the promise might be confirmed (eis to einai bebaian, 4:16; cf. 15:8) to all Abraham’s seed, not to those who are of the Law alone (ou tō ek tou nomou monon) but also to those who are of Abraham’s faith (tō ek pistetōs Abraam), who is the father of us all (hos estin patēr pantōn hēmōn).

In this passage, then, Paul is speaking of the core of the thesis that he is arguing. This is evident from his conclusion to his argument which he expresses in 15:8, when he speaks of Christ as having become a Servant of the Circumcision on behalf of God’s truthfulness “to confirm the promises made to the patriarchs” (eis to bebaiōsai tas epaggelias tōn paterōn). So, how is it that Abraham is the father of us all? How is it that Jesus Christ confirmed God’s promise to Abraham? To the extent that the Law testified to God’s righteousness 3:21-22), the Law did so by bringing God’s wrath to completion. God designed the Law for that purpose, not for the purpose of confirming his promised inheritance. God designed the gospel for this purpose--to confirm the promise. So, the gospel, not the Law, conveys the fulfillment of the promise when God poured out his completed wrath upon his own Son (3:23-26). From this confirmation of the promise, then, both Jews and Gentiles are blessed.

Romans 4:13-16

2005-08-21T09:22:00.000-05:00

Forgive me for the delay in posting this. I had difficulty logging on from home.

¹³ For the promise to Abraham and to his seed, that he would be heir of the world would not be through the Law but through the righteousness of faithfulness. ¹⁴ For, if the heirs are of the Law, then this faithfulness is made void and the promise is empty. ¹⁵ For the Law brings about wrath, and where there is no Law there is no transgression. ¹⁶On account of this, the promised inheritance is of faithfulness, in order that it would be on account of grace, so that the promise would be shown true to all the seed, not only to those of the Law but also to those of Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all.

Paul now grounds his argument from above. The promise to Abraham and his seed was not to come through the Law but through the righteousness of faithfulness. That is, as you mentioned in your last comment on my commentary, the ‘righteousness of faithfulness’, that is the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. Why did God intend for the promise to be through faithfulness? Because if God intended the promise to be through the Law, then the faithfulness and the promise are void and empty? Why would the faithfulness be void and the promise empty? Because, Paul says, “The Law brings about wrath, and where there is no Law there is neither transgression” (v. 15). As we have read earlier the Law has brought about wrath. This was Paul’s point in 1:18ff, a point he will pick up again. If the Law was the intended means, then the promise is empty, because those who are of the Law stand under God’s wrath, because they did not do the very things of the Law. Because of the Law and the uncircumcised heart, the Law brought about transgression (Transgression here being more technical than sin. Paul is not saying there is no sin without the Law, but that there is no transgression of Law, when there is no Law given).

Rather than the promised inheritance coming through the Law it is of faithfulness. That is, it seems that the faithfulness Paul has in view here is the faithfulness of Jesus. He was the means of the promised inheritance coming to be. He was the means so that it would be on account of grace, and confirmed to all the seed to both those of the Law and also to those who believe like Abraham believed prior to circumcision.

Posting Soon

2005-08-16T07:13:00.000-05:00

Other duties, primarily preaching, have kept me from posting on a regular basis. My sermon series is over, and now I will begin posting again. Look for the first post this Friday.

Comments on Romans 4:9-12

2005-08-04T07:05:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

For the sake of clarity I am posting your translation with my few comments. I offer only one slight adjustment in your translation. This adjustment is in verse 11. Your translation reads: "He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them. . . ." We could move the verb "believe" to the end of the pronominal clause to make the clause clearer and to avoid the mental confusion that naturally comes due to the fact that the verb "believe" is often followed with the preposition "in" to speak of the thing believed. We could translate the words, tōn pisteuontōn di' akrobustias, in a couple of other ways to make the thought clear. We could translate: "of those who believe, though uncircumcised." We could also translate the words: "of those who believe but are not of the circumcision." May I suggest that we translate it: "of those who believe while in the state of uncircumcision"?

⁹ Therefore is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). ¹⁰ How, then, was it reckoned? Was he in a state of circumcision or uncircumcision? He was not in a state of circumcision but uncircumcision! ¹¹ He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe while in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them ¹² and the father of the circumcision, to those not of the circumcision alone but are also ones who walk in the steps of faith of our father Abraham while in uncircumcision.

In my last entry I argued that "grammar matters. The person is not the direct object of the verbs reckon and forgive. Rather, the person is the indirect object of the verbs. God forgives sins, not people. Likewise, God's reckoning has in view Abraham's trust, positively, and David's lawlessnesses and sins, negatively." It is important to carry these thoughts forward into this passage, for, unless we are careful we may mangle Paul's distinctive redemptive-historically focused thoughts.

Paul's question of verse 9 ("Is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision?") concerns the blessing of which he has just spoken. What is this blessing? It is God's not reckoning my sins to me, or expressed positively, it is God's forgiveness of my iniquities and his covering of my sins. Three expressions--God's forgiving, God's not reckoning, and God's covering--depict this blessing. Notice also that in each case the person, I, am the indirect object of God's acts. My sins and iniquities are the direct object of God's acts. The grammar is significant. For the popular way of talking, that God reckoned Abraham righteous or that God reckons us righteous is not Paul's way of speaking in Romans 4:1-12. To speak this way does injury to the "bookkeeping imagery." Paul's "bookkeeping imagery" requires that we think of the accounts or records as belonging to people--Abraham, David, believers. What is in these accounts or records? Sins and iniquities, indicators of poverty and indebtedness before God, the one who keeps the books. But there is something else specifically mentioned in the case of Abraham; it is his belief in God who promised. It is this that Paul reiterates in verse 9: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” If the bookkeeping imagery continues, and it surely seems that it does, is not Paul saying that when God reckoned to Abraham his faith for righteousness that God canceled his indebtedness of sins? Is this not why Paul cites Psalm 32:1-2 concerning David's case? When David says, "Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon sin," is he not saying that God canceled his indebtedness incurred by his sins? Is this, then, not the point stated positively when Paul summarizes the matter as he does in verse 6 saying, "as David speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works" and again in verse 11 saying, "He [Abraham] received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe while in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them"? In other words, then, it seems that the bookkeeping imagery requires that we understand that on the accounts page for Abraham, for David, and for us who believe, God has written the words "Debt forgiven" or "Debt paid in full" or "Debt cancelled" or "Righteousness." We would be wrong, however, to conclude that Abraham's or our belief is righteousness itself. Paul does not say this. He is careful to say that “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” The debt is canceled; Abraham's faith is credited, accounted, or reckoned for righteousness. Faith does not pay off the debt, for earlier, when Paul cites these same words from Genesis 15:6, he makes it clear that Abraham's faith does not pay off his indebtedness to God but actually places him even further in debt to God, but now as a debtor to God's grace: But to the one who works the wage is not reckoned to him according to grace but according to debt. But to the one who does not work but believes on him who declares the ungodly to be righteous, that one’s faith is reckoned for righteousness.

Yes, as we have just seen in his two summary statements, verses 6 and 11, Paul does speak of God's reckoning righteousness to believers. But observe that Paul does not say that God reckoned believers righteous. Once again, this may seem pedantic to some, but it is crucial, for to comment on this passage with such an expression is to speak sloppily, slovenly, and carelessly, running roughshod over Paul's bookkeeping imagery and to do injury to his refined theological expression. This is not to suggest that we should not and cannot speak of believers as justified. Furthermore, this is not to suggest that Paul sometimes uses the verb logizomai with people as the direct object. He does so in Romans 6:11; 8:36; 9:8; 1 Corinthians 4:1; etc. The point is this, that our translations and our theological comments upon a passage must reflect accurately the wording of the passage and remain consistent with the imagery that governs the passage.

Now I turn to offer a brief additional comment concerning your observation of the importance of taking note "that Paul is specifically dealing with the chronology of Abraham’s life, thus history matters." It is just as you have pointed out that "Paul sees that the statement ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ occurred prior to Abraham’s circumcision." Here for the sake of his argument in Romans 4, it is crucial that he focus upon the historical relationship of Abraham's believing God's promise and Abraham's being circumcised. His belief in the promise precedes his being circumcised. In Galatians 3, Paul also gives careful attention to historical sequence in the biblical text. There, however, his focus is upon the historical relationship between God's giving of the promise to Abraham and God's giving of the Law through intermediaries--angels and Moses (Galatians 3:15-20). In Galatians 3, sequence of God's acts in the movement of redemptive history is crucial to Paul's argument. In Romans 4, sequence of God's acts in the life of Abraham takes center stage. Simply from the sequence of the biblical narrative of the Abraham story, Paul contends that Abraham was in a state of uncircumcision, not in the state of circumcision when he believed an his faith was reckoned for righteousness (v. 10).

It is for this reason, then, that God rightly presents circumcision to Abraham as a "sign" and as a "seal of righteousness" and that God did not present circumcision to Abraham as righteousness itself. This is inherently present in Genesis 17, the narrative that speaks of God's giving circumcision to Abraham as a sign of the covenant. From the beginning, then, any Jew or Gentile proselyte who would invest in circumcision more than the Lord invested in it did so to their own peril. Circumcision had sign value. As a sign, then, from the beginning circumcision was utterly worthless apart from belief in the promise, following in the footsteps of Abraham who believed God who promises (as per Paul's argument in Romans 2). From the beginning, circumcision was powerless to effect either righteousness or belief in the promise; rather, circumcision was an external sign that pointed to the need of the internal reality of belief in the God who promises. As such, then, it was a "seal of the righteousness of faithfulness," an expression that requires some closer attention.

Before I offer any comments on that latter expression, however, it is fitting to pause for a moment to reflect upon the portentous consequence of what Paul says in verse 11 before what he says in verse 12. "Portentous" is James R. Edwards' word to describe what Paul is saying (Romans, NIBC [Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1992], 118). Edwards rightly observes: "Abraham was the father of Gentile believers before he was the father of Jewish believers, for he was the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, before he was the father of the covenant. His becoming forefather of the Jews was a subsequent specification of an original fatherhood of all who believe, namely, of Gentiles. Thus, both Gentile Christians and Jewish Christians (and in that order!) may appeal to Abraham as father" (pp. 118-119). This truly is portentous, as Edwards says. It is full of wonder and awe. In other words, Paul subtly reinforces a crucial point he has made earlier when he asked, "What then? Are we Jews any better [than Gentiles]?" (Romans 3:9).

Now for a brief comment on the phrase "righteousness of faithfulness." Timotheos, you asked, "Paulos, in your last note, you mentioned something regarding how Abraham not only typified (in a typological sense) the believer, whose faith is reckoned for righteousness, but also how Abraham typified Christ, the righteous one. Would this phrase be an indication of that?" Though I will not go to the wall for what I am about to say, I do wonder if Paul's expression, sphagida tēs dikaiosunēs tēs pisteōs tēs en tē akroobustia (σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ) does not have reference to something bigger and outside Abraham's faith. It seems to me that it has grammatical reference to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ (refer to our earlier discussion of Romans 3:21ff) and that it has historical reference to the thing promised and thus believed by Abraham rather than to Abraham's belief itself. It is an expression that we find again with variation in Romans 9:30 and 10:6, which, in my estimation, likely have reference to Christ's faithfulness.

I realize that this final paragraph is more tantalizing than explanatory. I have, however, other duties that I must attend at the moment. So, this must suffice for now.

Paulos

Romans 4:9-12 Translation and Comments

2005-07-31T15:56:00.000-05:00

Romans 4:9-12

⁹ Therefore is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). ¹⁰ How, then, was it reckoned? Was he in a state of circumcision or uncircumcision? He was not in a state of circumcision but uncircumcision! ¹¹ He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them ¹² and the father of the circumcision, to those not of the circumcision alone but are also ones who walk in the steps of faith of our father Abraham while in uncircumcision.

After mentioning that one is blessed when the Lord forgives his sinful deeds, Paul asks the question, ‘Is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision’ (v. 9)? To answer the question, Paul looks again at Abraham’s life. It is important to note that Paul is specifically dealing with the chronology of Abraham’s life, thus history matters. Paul sees that the statement ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness’ occurred prior to Abraham’s circumcision. Thus, Paul states, ‘He [Abraham] was not in a state of circumcision but uncircumcision’ (v. 10). Circumcision came after the statement was made regarding God’s reckoning of Abraham, and the circumcision was a seal or signet of the righteousness of faithfulness.

The divine purpose for this (Talk about the purpose driven life, eh!?) was so that Abraham would be the father of the uncircumcision, who believe just as he did when we was uncircumcised, and thus have righteousness be reckoned to them. Abraham was also designed to be the father of those who are circumcised. Now, what is important in verse 12 is that the ‘circumcision’ is specifically spelled out, so that circumcision is not preeminent in this verse, but following in the steps of the faith of Abraham. Thus, Paul is again making a distinction here between those who are circumcised and those who are circumcised and walk by faith. Circumcision is not what would define someone as belonging to Abraham. What defines a son of Abraham is walking as he walked, that is walking by faith, whether circumcised or not. This is a distinction which Paul will draw out even more in Romans 9, when he discusses those who are of the promise.

One other thought in this passage concerns the phrase ‘righteousness of faithfulness’. Paulos, in your last note, you mentioned something regarding how Abraham not only typified (in a typological sense) the believer, whose faith is reckoned for righteousness, but also how Abraham typified Christ, the righteous one. Would this phrase be an indication of that?

Sorry for the delay, and thank you for your patience. Things should be a bit more normal this week. So I will endeavor to post again by the end of the week. I anticipate your thoughts!

Timotheos

Romans 4:9-12

2005-07-30T10:14:00.000-05:00

It has been too long since I last posted on Romans. I am right now posting my translation of Romans 4:9-12, and then by Sunday night I will post the comments for this section. Sorry for the delay, but I have been working on a sermon series on creation themes. There is a corresponding blog for this sermon series, which you can view, and listen to the audio. Here is the blog:
http://fccsermontabletalk.blogspot.com/.

Here, now is my translation.

Romans 4:9-12

⁹ Therefore is this blessing for the circumcision or also for the uncircumcision? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6). ¹⁰ How, then, was it reckoned? Was he in a state of circumcision or uncircumcision? He was not in a state of circumcision but uncircumcision! ¹¹ He received the sign of circumcision, a signet of the righteousness of faithfulness, which was his while he was in uncircumcision, so that he might be the father of all who believe in the state of uncircumcision, so that righteousness might be reckoned to them ¹² and the father of the circumcision, to those not of the circumcision alone but are also ones who walk in the steps of faith of our father Abraham while in uncircumcision.

Comments on Romans 4:6-8

2005-07-15T07:42:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

You have raised some crucial questions, questions that I also have. Let's see if we can work through them to some resolution that is true and satisfactory to the text.

Before I comment upon Romans 4:6-8 I would like to return to 4:1-5 to offer a note concerning an important aspect of the passage that I passed over previously.

Paul employs the imagery of bookkeeping when he says, "Now to the one who works wages are not reckoned in keeping with grace but in keeping with debt, but to the one who does not work but trusts upon him who justifies the ungodly, his trust is reckoned for righteousness."

Three features of the text stand out.

Paul understands Genesis 15 to mean that Abraham was ungodly when God justified him. This will be important to his argument later, particularly in 4:11-12, when he contends that God justified Abraham when he was yet an uncircumcised Gentile.

God's act in justifying Abraham, an ungodly man, distinctively sets God apart from humans. God forbids humans to do what he did with Abraham. God forbids any human judge to justify the ungodly. Paul's words--to dikaioounta ton asebē (the one who justifies the ungodly)--echo those of the Greek text of Exodus 23:7--ou dikaiōseis ton asebē (do not justify the ungodly), except in the positive (cf. Proverbs 17:15). As Paul has explained already, in 3:25-26, God is righteous to justify the ungodly because he has passed judgment and inflicted his wrath of punishment upon a substitute, namely, Jesus Christ. What God condemns as unjust in the lawcourt of humans is just in the lawcourt of heaven, not merely because he is God, as if by fiat God could reverse the matter. Justifying the ungodly is wicked, not simply because God determined that it should be wicked by sheer force of his will. No! Contrary to the Governmental Theory of the Atonement. Justifying the ungodly is wicked because of God's character. God had to satisfy his own wrath in order to declare sinners righteous.

Thus, Paul's statement--the one who justifies the ungodly--takes us back to the beginning of his argument in 1:18ff. The one who believes has nothing to offer to God as a premise or basis upon which God could ground his justice and thus declare the ungodly man righteous. God's justification of the ungodly is out of sheer grace, not out of any debt to the one justified.

Now I will offer a few comments on 4:6-8.

Paul's kathaper (so also, in the same way) makes it clear that he understands David's words from Psalm 32:1-2 as speaking of the same thing he has just mentioned, namely God's blessing to the one whom God reckons righteous apart from works. From where did Paul draw the inference that David speaks of the blessing of the one whom God reckons righteous apart from works? This is the the third of your questions set out with bullet points. How does Psalm 32:1-2 support Paul's assertion, particularly that God reckons one righteous apart from works? Psalm 32, itself, says nothing explicit about a reckoning of righteousness apart from works.

It seems that the answer to the question lies somewhere along this trail of thought. It is crucial that we recognize that Paul is working off the verb reckon (logizomai) which is common to both Genesis 15:6 (elogisthē autō eis dikaiosunēn) and Psalm 32:1-2 (hou ou mē logisētai kurios hamartian; Ps 31:2 LXX) in the Greek Old Testament. For Abraham, the ungodly man, God reckoned his trust for righteousness. For David, the blessed man, God did not reckon his sin for unrighteousness but forgave his transgression. In other words, David was as much a beggar as Abraham; neither man had any claim upon God. Neither one could claim God's reckoning on any other ground than God's graciousness. Thus, Paul understands the words of Psalm 32:2--God's not reckoning sin against David--as equivalent to his own words in Romans 4:6--God's reckoning righteousness apart from works. Paul's appeal to Scripture with regard to both men, then, supports his point that neither Abraham nor David had any claim upon God, for God's reckoning righteousness is entirely of grace and not of debt. This seems to me to be the answer to your third question, then.

Before I proceed further, it seems right that I should pause to point out an important detail of Paul's text which, of course, is true of both Genesis 15:6 and Psalm 32:1-2, also. In our doing Christian theology we tend to ignore this fine detail of distinction. We tend to glide over the textual detail and say that God reckoned Abraham righteous or that God reckoned David righteous. Ultimately we are almost right to speak like this, for those to whom God has not reckoned sin these are justified and not under condemnation (Romans 5:1; 8:1). However, within Romans 4, for Paul, the blessing of Abraham and of David is not precisely that God has reckoned them righteous. Rather, Paul is careful to speak of the blessing of the one to whom God reckons righteousness. . . . Positively, in the case of Abraham, God reckons Abraham's faith for righteousness. Negatively, in the case of David, God does not reckon his sin against him but forgives his lawless deeds. This may seem picayunish and pedantic to say, but it is crucial, nonetheless. David's blessing is not that God does not reckon him a sinner; David's blessing is that God does not reckon his sin against him.

This, of course, sustains Paul's employment of the bookkeeping imagery. Expressed positively, as in Psalm 32:1, David's blessing is not that God forgives David; David's blessing is that God forgives David's lawless deeds and covers his sin. In other words, grammar matters. The person is not the direct object of the verbs reckon and forgive. Rather, the person is the indirect object of the verbs. God forgives sins, not people. Likewise, God's reckoning has in view Abraham's trust, positively, and David's lawlessnesses and sins, negatively. Why is this not pedantic or picayunish but significant? It is for this reason: If we are to know the blessing of which David speaks, we must see ourselves as Abraham and as David saw themselves, utterly destitute apart from God's grace, completely helpless and without any claim upon God at all because of our sins. We must recognize that the fundamental issue at stake in God's court of justice is our sin. God's reckoning concerns sin. God has to deal with our actual and real sins not just with us as persons, but with our sins. We must recognize that apart from God's act of reckoning we are rightly counted ungodly. Thus, it seems to me that the Reformers got this matter quite right when they protested against Rome's teaching and set out to reform the church.

I'm sorry that my response takes your questions out of order. I do so, however, because Paul's text suggests this reordering of the questions to my mind. So, now I return to your first two questions. First you asked: Does Paul's expression to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works mean the same as apart from works of the Law? Your second question flows from the first: If apart from works means the same as apart from works of the Law is Paul making the connection with David to the 'working' in 4:4?

It seems to me that we would wrongly take Paul's unqualified use of chōris erga (apart from works) in Romans 4:6 as strictly equivalent to chōris erga nomou (apart from works of the Law, 3:28) or chōris nomou (apart from the Law, 3:21). Surely, the expressions are related. Yet, the unqualified expression in 4:6, apart from works, seems to be somewhat distinct from apart from works of the Law (3:28) because a crucial point that Paul is making in Romans 4 is that Abraham, who was not under the Law as David was, also had no works to bring before God which would count for righteousness. In other words, it seems to me that the Reformers got it right, that God's reckoning righteousness is not grounded in any works of any kind that humans do. As David expresses the blessing of the one to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works, take note of the works encompassed in his view. The works David mentions do have reference to the Law (nomos), but they are Lawlessnesses (hai anomiai) and sins (hai hamartiai). Yet, even for David, things contrary to the Law of Moses fit a larger category, namely, sins. Thus, it seems to me that Paul's phrase apart from works is a larger category than apart from works of the Law, the latter being subordinate to the former.

Now, there is one more matter in your first question that I should address. As you reasoned whether Paul's expression apart from works should be understood as equivalent to his earlier expression apart from works of the Law, you made the following comment: Also in 3.21 Paul says that God’s righteousness has been revealed ‘apart from the Law’. Putting these things together would make sense that the ‘apart from works’ would refer to the Law of Moses. Again, this may seem picayunish and pedantic, but we need to recognize a distinction between Paul's expressions in 3:28; 4:6 and his expression in 3:21.

3:21--But now God's righteousness has been disclosed apart from the Law

3:28--For we reckon that a man is justified by faithfulness apart from works of the Law

4:6--as David speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works

The latter two passages are parallel, for both speak of being justified by God, and both negate a particular basis upon which God's justifying is grounded, apart from works of the Law and apart from works, respectively. However, in 3:21, Paul's expression apart from the Law does not attach to God's act of justifying but to God's act of disclosing his own righteousness. This is quite significant. The point Paul makes in 3:21 is not the same point he makes in 3:28 or in 4:6.

Undoubtedly, there are elements in the text that call for more and closer attention. This, however, must suffice for now.

Paulos

Romans 4:6-8

2005-07-14T07:42:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
Unfortunately I had difficulty with my dial-up access last night, so I was unable to post last night. I have included my translation and comments. With this section, though, I actually have more questions than comments. Once we talk about my questions, then I will write a summary, and then move on to the next section.

Grace to you!

Romans 4.6-8

⁶ Just as David speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God reckons righteous apart from works. ⁷ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and those whose sins are covered. ⁸Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not reckon (Psalm 32:1-2).

Just as Paul called on Abraham as a type of the Christian, who is reckoned righteous not because of possession of the Law, but because of grace through faith, Paul shows how David is a type of the Christian whose sins are covered not because of the Law, but on account of God’s mercy.

Aside from what I will mention at the end of this post, what I wrote above regarding these few verses is at this point as detailed as I can get. This is true, because I have a few questions regarding this passage that are not satisfactorily answered in the commentaries. Paulos, perhaps you will help me here as you have helped me in previous notes. Here are the questions:

It seems that in the phrase I translated ‘apart from works’ (v. 6), that the ‘works’ should refer to the Law. This is a fair connection since Paul has already used ‘work(s)’ to refer to the deeds required by the Law of Moses. Also in 3.21 Paul says that God’s righteousness has been revealed ‘apart from the Law’. Putting these things together would make sense that the ‘apart from works’ would refer to the Law of Moses.
Is the preceding interpretation correct? The reason I question is on account of the shift in 4:4 to talk of ‘works’ with a shade of difference in relation to ‘works of the law’. Is Paul making the connection with David to the ‘working’ in 4:4?
If the first interpretation above is correct, then how does the Psalm support Paul’s point specifically regarding ‘apart from works’? The apart from works is a crucial theme here, but as far as I can see it the ‘apart from works’ is not argued in Psalm 32. Forgiveness is definitely described, but not ‘apart from works’.

Lastly, in verse 8 we have a helpful statement from David which helps us understand justification, as Paul views it. God is just to declare men guilty for their sin, but blessed is the man whom God does not reckon him guilty in keeping with his sin. This though raises a huge theological question for which Paul has already given the answer. The question? How can God be just and reckon guilty men to be righteous? Paul answers this question in 3:21ff.

Thanks for your help in understanding Romans! As you can see I still have many questions here, and I look forward to your response.

Timotheos

Welcome Home!

2005-07-12T19:06:00.000-05:00

Paulos,

Thank you for your comments, and for the evidence for my translation of Romans 4:1! It is good to hear from you. I trust your trip was enjoyable. I look forward to continuing with Paul. I will plan on posting on the next section in Romans Wednesday night. Again, welcome home!

Timotheos

Comments on Romans 4:1-5

2005-07-11T14:20:00.001-05:00

I have returned from my journey. I am refreshed and ready to dive back into our discussion of Romans.

I concur with your translation of Romans 4:1, that we should translate the verse as containing two questions rather than one, translations tend to favor. Here is evidence from Paul's Letter to the Romans that wherever he uses the same phrase, he always poses two questions other than in Romans 4:1.

Romans 4:1 ti oun eroumen

What then shall we claim to have found concerning Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?

Romans 6:1 ti oun eroumen

What then are we to say? Should we continue in sin in order that grace may abound?

Romans 7:7 ti oun eroumen

What then should we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet, if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet.”

Romans 8:31 ti oun eroumen pros tauta

What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?

Romans 9:14 ti oun eroumen

What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!

Romans 9:30 ti oun eroumen

What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith.

Thus, I believe you are right when you say, "The issue, then, is not what Abraham found, but how Abraham is the forefather of Christians."

Against the tendency of some, these days, who exaggerate valid exegetical observations in Paul's letters, there are hints in the apostle's letter that he recognizes that ultimately the Jews' posture with regard to the Law necessarily entangles them in a system of righteousness grounded in one's own fabrication of righteousness before God. So, Paul's first use of Abraham counters the Jews' boast in their possessing the Law and circumcision. His appeal to Abraham, of course, is distinctive for two reasons: (1) Abraham was not under the Law; and (2) Abraham was circumcized only after he believed God and was justified. This, however, as we will see is not the end of Paul's use of Abraham. Abraham foreshadows Christian believers, for sure, particularly their trust in the God who promises. Yet, as we will see before we complete our considerations of Romans 4, Abraham foreshadows Messiah also, particularly his faithfulness.

Also, I believe your aside is correct. N. T. Wright, in my estimation, has confounded the biblical imagery of justification and the imagery of covenant membership. Indeed, those who are in covenant relationship with God are also justified, but the two imageries are not to be fused as one so that the courtroom imagery of justification loses its distinctiveness by being swallowed up by the relational imagery of covenant membership. As you said, justification is imagery that concerns legal status, and covenant membership is imagery that stands distinct but not separate from justification.

2005-07-02T16:09:00.000-05:00

Fascinating rock formations at Giant's Causeway, Northern Ireland. In Belfast this evening.

2005-07-02T16:00:00.000-05:00

Hello from Londonderry, Northern Ireland

Romans 4:1-5

2005-07-01T15:46:00.000-05:00

While Paulos is away on a journey, I will keep posting. Here is my translation of Romans 4:1-5 with a commentary on the passage.

Romans 4

¹What, then shall we say? Have we found Abraham to be our forefather according to the flesh? ² For if Abraham was declared righteous on the basis of works, he has grounds for boasting, but not before God. ³ For what does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness.” ⁴ But to the one who works the wage is not reckoned to him according to grace but according to debt. ⁵ But to the one who does not work but believes on him who declares the ungodly to be righteous, that one’s faith is reckoned for righteousness.

In chapter 4 Paul turns to the Scriptures, especially the accounts of Abraham and David to show how what he said in 3:27-31 is true to the text.

I have begun my translation going against the majority of English translations. But, because of Richard Hays’ work on this matter (for an easily accessible discussion see his Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, 54-55), I have adopted the above translation. The issue, then, is not what Abraham found, but how Abraham is the forefather of Christians. Within this treatment of how Abraham is the forefather of Christians, Paul says a few things regarding justification by God.

Paul argues beginning in verse 2 that if Abraham were declared righteous on the basis of works (that is works of the Law), he would have grounds for boasting. This boasting would be the type of boasting Paul described in 2:17-20. But Paul has already excluded this type of boasting in 3:27-30. Thus, Paul adds, ‘not before God’. The Scripture itself talks of how Abraham was reckoned righteous. How? Was it on the basis the works of the Law? No! The reckoning was according to grace to the one who believes in God who declares the ungodly to be righteous.

Thus, what Paul said in 3:21ff is shown to be true for Abraham. It was not on the basis of works of the Law that Abraham was reckoned righteous by God. Rather, the reckoning was according to God’s grace. Who are the ones that God will declare righteous in the last day? It is those who trust in him, just like Abraham.

As an aside (but an important one), I need to mention Wright’s take on justification in chapter 4. What he does is combine the metaphors of covenant and justification. He sees Paul to be saying, then, that when Paul says that Abraham’s faith was reckoned as righteousness that Abraham was considered to be in covenant with God.

I think this is a misreading of Paul. Rather than Wright’s view, I think it is better to see Paul as using the courtroom imagery of justification and keeping it legal. That is, it seems that Paul sees what was done with Abraham as a courtroom scene not as a covenant ceremony. One can see why Wright would go this route, since the quote is from Genesis 15, where God cuts a covenant with Abraham. But it seems to me that this would be a place where we should see the distinctions between the legal and the covenantal, while maintaining their inseparability.

Comments on Romans 3:27-31

2005-06-21T09:12:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Before I make some comments on the text, I will offer a few suggestions concerning translation. In verse 28 you translate the expression dikaiousthai pistei anthropon as “a man to be justified from faithfulness.” It may be possible to translate the dative pistei this way, though I do not recall any examples. I would think that it would be more likely that we should translate the dative pistei as “by,” signifying instrumentality. In verse 29, I notice that you use the singular “Gentile” rather than the plural. Did I miss some significance as to why you chose the singular rather than the plural, since ethnōn is plural? In verses 30 and 31, I wonder if it would not be helpful to draw out Paul’s emphatic use of the article in the two identical clauses, dia tēs pisteōs. The article tēs is quite clearly anaphoric, which, for our readers who are not so familiar with grammatical terms, means that it is the use of the article to signal that it is the same “faithfulness” (pisteōs) that Paul has been speaking of since his mention of it in 3:21. It is the “faithfulness” of Jesus Christ. Finally, you do not translate the relative pronoun hos in verse 30, and thus, you translate the verse, “since God is one, he will declare the circumcision righteous from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through faithfulness.” You may have a reason for this translation that I missed, or perhaps you did not explain why you took the relative pronoun simply as “he” and made it the subject of the verb dikaiōsei.

Here, then, is my translation of the passage.

²⁷ Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Through what Law? Is it excluded through the Law of deeds? No! It is excluded through the Law of faithfulness. ²⁸ For we consider a man to be declared righteous by faithfulness apart from deeds required by the Law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of the Jews alone? Is he not the God of the Gentiles also? Yes, he is God of the Gentiles also, ³⁰ since God is one who will declare righteous the circumcised from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through the same faithfulness. ³¹ Therefore, do we nullify the Law through this faithfulness? No way! Rather, we establish the Law.

By way of comments upon the text, first it would be good to address the issue of the Jews’ boast. Because commentators are not as careful in how they understand Paul’s expression erga nomou (works of the Law), they become a little sloppy as they oscillate between “works required by the Law” (which is correct) and “works done in obedience to the Law” (which is not correct). Typically, therefore, commentators slide into the second sense to explain what Paul means when he asks, “Where, then, is boasting?” Thus, commentators characteristically identify the boasting that is now excluded as boasting in one’s obedience to the Law. This follows Martin Luther’s comments on the passage: “The law of works necessarily puffs up and induces glorying, for a man who is righteous and who has kept the law without a doubt has something about which he can boast and be proud. Now the Jews believe that they have attained this status because they do outwardly what the law orders or prohibits. Therefore, they do not humble themselves and do not detest themselves as sinners. They do not seek to be justified and they do not fervently long for righteousness, because they are confident that they already possess it” (Luther, Lectures on Romans, 118). Luther may be right about the Jews, but is this what the apostle Paul speaks of when he mentions boasting that is excluded by the “Law of faithfulness”? Where has Paul previously mentioned boasting? Timotheos, you are correct to identify the theme of boasting in 2:17—“But if you call yourself a ‘Jew’ and you repose upon the Law and you boast in God. . . .” If we return to this passage, what do we find the Jews’ boast to be? It does not seem that Paul identifies their boast to be quite what Martin Luther identifies it to be in his comments on 3:27. Here is the passage.

¹⁷ But if you call yourself a “Jew” and you repose upon the Law and boast in God ¹⁸ and know his desire and approve the things that are excellent, because you have been instructed from the Law; ¹⁹ and if you are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, ²⁰ an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, because you have the outward form of knowledge and truth in the Law; ²¹ you, therefore, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal? ²² You who speak against adultery, do you commit adultery? You who detest idols, but do you rob the temples of idols? ²³ You who boast in the Law, through your transgression of the Law, you dishonor God. ²⁴ For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles on account of you,” just as it is written.

Though I believe that Martin Luther is right to identify the Jews' boast as a moral boast, from this passage does it not seem that Paul speaks of the Jews’ boast slightly different from the understanding Martin Luther adopts? Yes! In chapter 2, Paul does not prosecute the Jews for their misplaced confidence in observing of the Law but for their misplaced confidence in possessing the Law. Paul indicts the Jews for their failure to observe the Law while reposing confidently in the fact that they possess the Law and circumcision. Thus, though they boast in God, their boast is utterly vain because, while they disregard the Law, they repose confidently upon the Law as a possession, as if possession commends them to God despite their failure to do the things required by the Law.

So, while Martin Luther and those who follow his understanding of the text are right that the Jews were self-righteous, they seem to lodge the Jews' self-righteousness in the wrong place. They lodge it in the Jews' keeping the Law. Paul, however, lodges the Jews’ self-righteousness in their possessing the Law. The Jews’ reposing upon the Law and boasting in God is not born out of keeping the Law, but it is born out of their possessing the Law. The difference between these two is subtle but altogether important.

I believe both Martin Luther and N. T. Wright are partially correct but also partially incorrect in their explanations of the passage. I have already offered comments on Luther's understanding. Now I turn briefly to N. T. Wright who comments on 3:27--"The point here is that Paul is now ruling out the 'boast' whereby 'the Jew' maintained a status above that of the Gentiles. Paul is not addressing the more general 'boast' of the moral legalist whose system of salvation is one of self-effort, but the ethnic pride of Israel according to the flesh, supported as it was by the possession of the Torah and the performance of those 'works' that set Israel apart from the pagans" ("The Letter to the Romans," Interpreters Bible Commentary, 480). I believe that N. T. Wright is almost correct in what he affirms, and that he is almost right in what he denies. Yet, his denial and his affirmation both fall short. True, Paul is not addressing the general boast of the moral legalist whose system of salvation is one of self-effort. Nevertheless, he is addressing more than the boast of the ethnic pride of Israel according to the flesh. Against N. T. Wright, though ethnic pride may be involved in the Jews' boast, this is not in the foreground of what Paul is addressing. Even more clear is the fact that the Jews' boast, contrary to N. T. Wright's claim, is not supported by the performance of those 'works' that set Israel apart from the pagans. Wright seems to fall into the same mistake that Luther makes, that Paul indicts the Jews' for their doing what the Law requires. Paul's indictment of the Jews, in chapter 2, is not that they performed the deeds required by the Law but that they failed to do the deeds required by the Law. Furthermore, the boasting that Paul indicts is not ethnic pride but the notion that the Jews have a lock on God's approbation by sheer possession of the Law and of circumcision apart from actually doing what the Law requires.

Now I turn to your question. You asked, “What is this Law of faithfulness? As I see it there are two options. The ‘Law of faithfulness’ could be another way by which Paul is referring to the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah who suffered and died on behalf of sinful man. Or it could be another way by which Paul is referring to Law keeping Gentiles. That is, the boasting is excluded not by mere possession of the Law but by faithfulness to the Law. I am not sure at this point which one of these makes more sense. Do you know of a better option, Paulos? Or do you choose one of these two? If so, why?”

First, I take nomos pisteōs (Law of faithfulness) as Paul’s rhetorical play on the term nomos, referring to the Law of Moses. I agree with you when you say, “As a brief aside, I should mention that I did not take the ‘principle’ interpretation for nomos (‘Law’) in this section. To do so, to me, seems to do violence to the text, since what is at issue since chapter 2 is the Law of Moses. I don’t think Paul would introduce the connotation of ‘principle’ here. . . . Instead, I think he is using nomos throughout to talk about Torah.”

Because, as I commented in my brief notes above on translation that Paul makes it clear by his anaphoric use of the article in his phrase dia tēs pisteōs (“through this faithfulness”) that he is consistently referring to pistis Chistou (“the faithfulness of Jesus Christ”), it seems to me that his use of nomos pisteōs (“the Law of faithfulness”) has to refer to the same pistis, the same faithfulness. So, the sense would be “the Law of the faithfulness of Christ Jesus.” Thus, it seems to me that Paul is speaking of the Law of Moses as it has met its fulfillment and thus its end in the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. What, then, excludes “boasting in the possession of the Law”? It is not the “Law of works” but the “Law of the faithfulness of Christ Jesus” that shuts out all “boasting in the possession of the Law.” It is not the Law of Moses in its jurisdiction over its subjects that puts an end to "boasting." It is the Law of Moses in its fulfillment, in that it has reached its goal in Messiah Jesus, that shuts out all "boasting." Why? It is because Jesus Christ’s faithfulness, testified to by the Law and the Prophets (i.e., Scripture), has brought an end to the Law of Moses, “the Law of works,” not by mere fiat but by fulfilling all that the Law prophesied, for all that the Law prophesied converges in one, namely in Messiah Jesus.

So, once again, I believe you are right to say, “Verse 28 would seem to tip the scale of how to take the phrase ‘Law of faithfulness’, since v. 28 grounds v. 27, and in verse 28 Paul specifically states, ‘For we consider a man to be declared righteous from faithfulness,’ which is clearly restating the argument of 3:21-26, which regards Jesus’ faithfulness as a substitutionary sacrifice for us as the reason for our vindication and for displaying God’s righteousness in justifying sinners. In other words, it would seem that ‘Law of faithfulness’ would refer to Jesus’ faithfulness.”

You rightly identify the fact that Paul recognizes that what he has argued brings up a potential problem. You identify it this way: “If one is declared righteous apart from the Law of works, does that mean that Torah is nullified by Jesus’ faithfulness? Paul’s answer to this question is ‘Banish the thought!’ Why? Because the Law is not nullified, rather it is established. To show this Paul will turn to Abraham as one who was declared righteous apart from the works required by the Law.”

Finally, as I indicated in my notes above, I believe that Paul’s phrase, “Law of faithfulness,” refers to Christ’s faithfulness which has fulfilled all that the Law prophesied. Thus, true as it is that Jesus Christ has brought the Law of works to its end (cf. Romans 10:4), he did not end the Law of Moses by decree; he ended it by fulfilling all that it prophesied. In particular, Jesus Christ gave himself up as the mercy seat of propitiation where took upon himself God’s wrath and turn God’s wrath aside from those for whom he substituted himself. Thus, the Law is not nullified through Christ’s faithfulness; rather, Christ’s faithfulness establishes the Law. What does it mean to say that "we establish the Law"? Surely, since Paul later says that "Christ is the end of the Law . . ." (Romans 10:4), the fact that here he says that "through this faithfulness . . . we establish the Law," he seems to mean that Christ's faithfulness validates the Law's God-designed purpose.

Paulos

Romans 3:27-31

2005-06-16T21:57:00.000-05:00

Paulos, I am finally catching up on my responsibilities after taking some time off. I wish I would have been able to begin again on bit less difficult passage. But in the providence of God this has not happened. Instead, I find this passage riddled with many difficulties as well. And we may need to have another extended exchange on this passage as we did on vv. 21-26. I am not too confident in what I have written below. I sense that a great deal is missing. What I am finding is as I try to be consistent in the translation of certain words, I find fewer and fewer commentators who see things the way I am seeking to understand them. Thus, as usual any insight you may bring will be much appreciated. Grace to you, and it is good to be writing again! Thankfully, I am able to write without any problem. I only slammed my finger once, and it wasn’t even with a hammer. Instead, I put my DeWalt screw gun into my left index finger. Thankfully it was only a gouge and no serious damage. Grace to you, and I anxiously await your thoughts!

Romans 3:27-31

²⁷ Where, therefore, is boasting? It is excluded! Through what law? The Law of works? No! But through the Law of faithfulness. ²⁸ For we consider a man to be justified from faithfulness apart from the works required by the Law. ²⁹ Or is God the God of Jews alone? No! Is he not God of the Gentile? Yes, of the Gentile also, ³⁰since God is one, he will declare the circumcision righteous from faithfulness and the uncircumcised through faithfulness. ³¹ Do we nullify the Law through faithfulness? Banish the thought! We establish the Law!

In verse 27 Paul returns to the boasting theme which he mentioned in 2:17 (But if you call yourself ‘Jew’ and you rely on Law and you boast in God) to show that we he just discussed in the previous verses brings an end to the boasting of the Jew, who possess the Law. Boasting is excluded not through the Law of works but through the Law of faithfulness. What is this Law of faithfulness? As I see it there are two options. The ‘Law of faithfulness’ could be another way by which Paul is referring to the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah who suffered and died on behalf of sinful man. Or it could be another way by which Paul is referring to Law keeping Gentiles. That is, the boasting is excluded not by mere possession of the Law but by faithfulness to the Law. I am not sure at this point which one of these makes more sense. Do you know of a better option, Paulos? Or do you choose one of these two? If so, why?

As a brief aside, I should mention that I did not take the ‘principle’ interpretation for nomos (‘Law’) in this section. To do so, to me, seems to do violence to the text, since what is at issue since chapter 2 is the Law of Moses. I don’t think Paul would introduce the connotation of ‘principle’ here, though it would be an interesting paronomasia. Instead, I think he is using nomos throughout to talk about Torah. Verse 28 would seem to tip the scale of how to take the phrase ‘Law of faithfulness’, since v. 28 grounds v. 27, and in verse 28 Paul specifically states, “For we consider a man to be declared righteous from faithfulness,” which is clearly restating the argument of 3:21-26, which regards Jesus’ faithfulness as a substitutionary sacrifice for us as the reason for our vindication and for displaying God’s righteousness in justifying sinners. In other words, it would seem that ‘Law of faithfulness’ would refer to Jesus’ faithfulness. But again, I would like to read your thoughts on this.

The oneness of God is also a reason for the exclusion of Jewish boasting. Why? Because God is the God not only of the Jew but of the Gentile as well. And God will declare righteous both the Jew and the Gentile from faithfulness. That is, the justification of both the Jew and the Gentile alike is apart from the Law of works, and it is from the faithfulness of Jesus the Messiah that the circumcised and the uncircumcised will be declared righteous.

This then brings up a potential problem. If one is declared righteous apart from the Law of works, does that mean that Torah is nullified by Jesus’ faithfulness? Paul’s answer to this question is ‘Banish the thought!’ Why? Because the Law is not nullified, rather it is established. To show this Paul will turn to Abraham as one who was declared righteous apart from the works required by the Law.

The Gospel is Principally the Announcement of God's Own Justification

2005-06-07T08:06:00.000-05:00

Until Timotheos returns, I may offer another blog entry. In the meantime, you may find this entry in my own blog of some interest, particularly with its embedded links.

Working with my hands

2005-06-05T22:56:00.000-05:00

This week (June 4 through June 10th ) I will be working with my hands, and minding my own business. I am building some stairs for my deck, which I built two years ago. So, I will be taking a short break from blogging (at least this is my plan). I may make some time to translate and post this week, but better would be for you who frequent this online commentary and tutorial to check back on June 14th. I may even post a picture of the project, but only if there are requests:)

Further Comments on Romans 3:21-26 Again--Responding to a Question

2005-05-31T07:49:00.000-05:00

A question raised by one of our blog readers and the reply I offered is worthy of being raised out of the "Comments" feature to the blog itself.

In response to our discussion concerning pistis Christou as Christ's faithfulness, Daniel asked, Are there any Pauline passages that refer to Jesus being the object of our faith? Or could these passages be explained in the same manner?

Here is my reply.

The object of taking pistis Christou and its variations as depicting the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is not to detract in any way from the necessity of our believing in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified or in order that we might be saved. John's Gospel repeatedly and in various ways speaks of the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ. John's Gospel was written with this as its primary objective (John 20:30-31).

The objective, therefore, of understanding pistis Christou and its variations as referring to Jesus Christ's faithfulness is to take the passages in the way that we believe is faithful to the apostle Paul's intent. Does doing so detract anything from the gospel? Does it detract anything from the necessity of belief? No, on both questions. As a matter of fact, such an understanding enhances the trustworthiness of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the gospel requires us to believe in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified. Paul makes this abundantly clear right in the heart of his statement in Galatians 2:16--"We know that no man is justified on the basis of deeds required by the Law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, and we believed in Christ Jesus in order that we might be justified on the basis of Christ's faithfulness and not on the basis of deeds required by the Law, for no flesh will be justified on the basis of deeds required by the Law."

Galatians 2:16, alone, is sufficient proof that Paul's gospel requires that we believe in Jesus Christ in order that we might be justified on the basis of his accomplishment and not on the basis of the Law's required deeds. More than this, however, each passage where we encounter Paul's formulaic expression pistis Christou or its variations, we also read of the necessity of believing. In Romans 3:22 Paul speaks of all who believe. Likewise, Philippians 3:8-10 speaks of the necessity of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him. Christ's faithfulness is the very basis that warrants complete and unqualified trust in him and knowledge of him. His faithfulness, featured in his sacrificial death, warrants our abandoning ourselves unto him as completely worthy of our enduring trust to save us from sin's dominion, mastery, and seduction that we might be declared righteous now and ever more before God's judgment bar. For if Christ Jesus is righteous, all who are found in him are and will be righteous before God, also.

What are we to believe? As we have already seen, in Galatians 2:16 Paul speaks of Christ's faithfulness as the basis for our entrusting ourselves to him. He is the faithful one, the one worthy of our deepest and most unreserved trust.

Understanding pistis Christou as Christ's faithfulness, then, detracts nothing from the gospel. Rather, it fills out the gospel by emphasizing the trustworthiness of Jesus. It is another way that Paul emphasizes what he does in Romans 5:12-19. There, Paul underscores the whole basis of our being justified in Christ, namely, on the basis of Christ's obedience in contrast to Adam's disobedience. The same thing is true with regard to Christ's faithfulness, except that Paul's focal point is shifted forward in redemptive history to unfaithful Israel. Observe that whenever Paul speaks of the pistis Christou he does so within the context of Israel and the Law. Why? It is because, like Adam, Israel is a type of the one who was to come, namely, Jesus (cf. Romans 5:14 on Adam). Adam and Israel, privileged as they both were, were disobedient and unfaithful, respectively. Adam disobeyed the single commandment. Israel was unfaithful to God's covenant. Jesus Christ, however, answers both: He is the obedient one and he is the faithful one. He is worthy of our trust, thus we entrust ourselves to him in order that God's verdict over him may be God's verdict over us--justified (cf. 1 Timothy 3:16).

It should, I trust, be evident, then, that we take nothing away from the gospel as the church has historically understood the gospel message. Rather, we are convinced that we restore a rightful biblical and Pauline emphasis in the gospel message, particularly, Christ's steadfast loyalty to the Father's redemptive mission in going the full measure to the cross on behalf of all those he came to redeem. Because Jesus Christ took upon himself the full measure of God's wrath none for whom he acted as redeeming sacrifice shall ever drink from the cup which he drank to the very dregs (cf. Psalm 75:8; Isaiah 51:17, 22; Romans 3:21-26).

Paulos

Comments on Romans 3:21-26 Again

2005-05-30T06:36:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Thanks for posting the NET Bible translation. I trust that it is helpful to our readers, such as Daniel, to realize that there are some crucial interpretive decisions that we have to make in Romans 3:21-26, including how we will translate dikaiosune theou (3:21, 22), pistis Iesou Christou (3:22, 25, 26), and hilasterion (3:25). The NET does not interpret the already defined expression, dikaiosune theou (3:21, 22), defined by Paul in 3:5, but leaves its meaning ambiguously stated for readers to interpret. Yet, the NET does interpret the expression, pistis Iesou Christou (3:22, 26), not yet defined by Paul. The KJV leaves both expressions ambiguous. Here is the KJV for 3:21-26 with the phrases marked as bold.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Though the KJV translators left the phrases in 3:21-22 ambiguous, they interpreted the phrase ton ek pisteos Iesou in 3:26. They not only interpreted the phrase; they verbed the noun pistis as believeth in Jesus. Neither the KJV nor the NET address the interpretive decision in 3:25 with the phrase dia tes pisteos en to autou haimati. When an article is used after a prepostion, as here (dia tes, one should inquire about its function. Here, the article tes functions as the article of previous mention, which is to say, it points back to the pistis already mentioned in from the beginning of the paragraph, namely, Christ's pistis. Thus, the phrase dia tes pisteos en to autou haimati identifies, with specificity, what Paul means when he speaks of Christ's faithfulness through which God has revealed his righteousness. This faithfulness entails Christ's atoning sacrificial death. Of course, blood is figurative for sacrificial death.

My interpretive decision concerning dikaiosune theou in 3:21, 22 is based, of course, not only upon the unambiguous meaning of the phrase in 3:5. Two other factors in this passage compel my interpretive decision. First is the obvious meaning of the same phrase used twice in this passage with the possessive pronoun (his) replacing the possessive God's, indicated by underlining (in translation below). Second is Paul's burden to make the point that by virtue of the atoning death of Jesus Christ, "God is both righteous and the one who declares righteous. . ." (3:26). Paul's burden, in other words, his thesis is that God has proved himself righteous in the gospel. Here, then, is my own translation, which is quite close to yours. I have marked as bold all the phrases where interpretive decisions must be made. The translation shows all of my decisions.

²¹ But now apart from the Law God’s righteousness has been disclosed, though being testified to by the Law and the prophets, ²² even God’s righteousness disclosed through Jesus Christ’s faithfulness unto all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ for all sinned and persist in falling short of God’s glory, ²⁴ being freely declared righteous by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, ²⁵ whom God publicly set forth as propitiation through the faithfulness in his blood for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in passing over sins that were previously committed, ²⁶ for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus.

You have nicely addressed the basis for interpreting pistis Christou as "Christ's faithfulness" rather than "faith in Christ." You have nicely shown how the phrase is used elsewhere. I am not convinced that Dan Wallace is right to regard James 2:1 and Revelation 2:13 (perhaps even Mark 11:22) as exceptions to the general observation that pistis + the genitive is best understood as a subjective construction. All three so-called "exceptions" make good (perhaps bettter) sense if taken as subjective genitives. But we do not need to address these at this time.

Clearly, Romans 3:21-26 speaks of "the righteousness of God" in terms of "his righteousness" was manifested earlier in "God's forbearance in passing over sins previously committed" (3:25) and in terms of "his righteousness" demonstrated in the present era "that he might be both righteous and the one who declares righteous those who are of the faithfulness of Jesus" (3:26). In other words, "God's righteousness" is set over against "human unrighteousness" (cf. 1:17-18; 3:1-8). God proves himself righteous by inflicting his wrath upon his own Son, the Faithful One, in order than God might be righteous when he declares sinners righteous. God's righteousness, his righteous character, requires that he satisfy his wrath (propitiate his wrath). He propitiates his wrath by inflicting it upon his Son instead of upon us.

Who are those for whom God inflicts his wrath upon his Son? I will leave this question for another note.

Paulos

Romans 3:21-26 Again

2005-05-27T01:24:00.000-05:00

Paulos, thank you for your comments regarding this important passage! In this post I would like to make some arguments for why I took the important phrase pistis Christou in the manner I did. This is both to make sure my case is defensible from the text, and also because our conversation partner, Daniel specifically asked about this. But before I do that I must acknowledge that you have redeemed my imprecise language once again. You wrote,

“I wonder if you may have actually intended to say the following, ‘It seems like we need to stop talking about being justified on the basis of faith [instead of by faith], as if the ground of our justification is our faith.’ In my estimation, the problem is not that we talk about being justified by faith, for by faith is a valid way of expressing means. Instead, what troubles me is when I hear preachers and teachers talking about our being justified on the basis of our faith. Here, then, is where your question rightly takes on its valid punch: How is being justified on the basis of our faith an improvement on being justified on the basis of our works?”

Yes, this is exactly what I was intending with my confusing words. Thank you for the aid!

Now, I turn to why I take pistis Christou as ‘Jesus’ faithfulness’. First, since you mentioned the NET Bible in your post, I will post it here for convenience sake.

²¹ But now apart from the law the righteousness of God (which is attested by the law and the prophets) has been disclosed-- ²² namely, the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. ²⁴ But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. ²⁵ God publicly displayed him at his death as the mercy seat accessible through faith. This was to demonstrate his righteousness, because God in his forbearance had passed over the sins previously committed. ²⁶ This was also to demonstrate his righteousness in the present time, so that he would be just and the justifier of the one who lives because of Jesus' faithfulness (NET).

Second, there is a tautology or redundancy in v. 22. This is not the primary reason for what is called the subjective reading (i.e., the genitive Christou is the subject of the verbal noun pistis, hence faith/faithfulness of Jesus. The traditional view is the objective reading, seeing Christou as the object of the verbal noun pistis, hence ‘faith in Jesus’), but it is a piece of the evidence for the subjective reading. Though Carson in ‘Lecture Three’, which was linked in your post, argues for an objective reading with an interpretation which makes sense of the tautology, I think there is a better reading, which is to see Paul as talking about two distinct things, that is the believer’s faith and Jesus’ faithfulness. In connection with this, it should be seen that when Paul does a major treatment on pistis Christou, the tautology we see here in Rom 3:22 we see also in Gal 3:22 (‘But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given--because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ--to those who believe’ [NET].). Now, Carson’s argument for the tautology may work in Rom 3, but I do not think that it will work in Gal 3. So, again, the tautology is evidence but it is not the only piece. What should also be highlighted is that even if one were to take the subjective reading, those who take this view are not necessarily (as some accuse us of doing) robbing the gospel of the importance of belief in Jesus, for in Rom 3 and Gal 3 human belief is a part of the argument.

Third, from the instances in the NT, when pistis is followed by a proper noun or a pronoun predominantly the construction is expressing the subjective genitive (Three exceptions are Mark 11:22; James 2:1, and Revelation 2:13 [see Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 116]). We see this very thing prior to the argument in vv. 21-26. In 3:3 Paul writes, “What then? If some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God ( ten pistin tou Theou). There is, of course, no debate here regarding the function of the genitive Theou. It should not be rendered ‘belief in God’. Thus, could it not be that Paul is directing us in v. 3 as to how we should ascertain his phrase pistis Christou in vv. 21-26? 3:3 also helps us understand why Paul would bring up the faithfulness of Jesus. Why? Because Israel, as Paul states in 3:3 was apistia, that is Israel was unfaithful. Thus, Jesus is what Israel was not, that is faithful.

Lastly, and this is more to answer Daniel, than to prove a point. He inquired regarding where else Paul talks of the faithfulness of Jesus. I already mentioned Galatians 3, but Paul also mentions it in Philippians 3:9 (“and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ's faithfulness--a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ's faithfulness.”[NET]) and Ephesians 3:12 (“¹¹ This was according to the eternal purpose that he accomplished in Christ Jesus our Lord, ¹² in whom we have boldness and confident access to God because of Christ's faithfulness” [NET]). Also the expression is found twice in Galatians 2:16:

¹⁶ yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.

Paulos, it’s late, and I need to get some rest. I will answer your question regarding my carry-over of v. 20 into 21 in my next post. The short answer: You’re right, I’m wrong. But I want to ponder it before I commit.

Thanks again for you time, and any other arguments for the subjective reading would be greatly appreciated.

Comments on Romans 3:21-26

2005-05-26T08:09:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Charis to you!

You're right! My note won't be as brief this time, for there is much in this passage to consider. I also anticipate that this will likely not be your or my only post on this crucial portion of the letter.

Blessings!
Paulos

Perhaps to the surprise of some of our readers, I accept your translation of the text with its phrases that demand exegetical-decision-making. I have in mind the phrase dikaiosune theou ("God's righteousness") and phrases associated with it and the phrase pistis chistou ("Messiah's faithfulness") and phrases associated with it.

Your first line of comments, however, prompts me to wonder. Why do you say, "Because the Law brings knowledge of sin, God's righteousness is revealed apart from the Law"? What do you see in the text that prompts you to view the connection as causal? Verse 20 makes it clear that knowledge of sin comes through the Law, but verse 21 begins, not with for (gar) or because (hoti) or dia with the accusative (on account of). Instead, verse 21 begins with nuni de, "but now," just as your translation shows. Therefore, I wonder about the basis of the causal connection you express.

I certainly agree that we must avoid Marcionism and that Paul's comments concerning the fact that "the Law and the prophets witnessed to God's righteousness" silences the notion that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are two different gods.

I concur that the dikaiosune (righteousness) of which Paul speaks in his phrase dikaiosune theou is descriptive of God's character and should not be confused with the biblical concept of our being justified by God. Paul has used the expression dikaiosune theou three times now: (1) in his thesis statement in 1:17 ("in it [the gospel] God's righteousness is revealed") (2) in 3:5 within the crucial "junction box" of his argument ("if our unrighteousness demonstrates God's righteousness") and now (3) in 3:21, the beginning of Paul's defense of God's character in relation to his promises ("God's righteousness has been revealed apart from the Law"). Use in 3:5 is utterly unambiguous, and because of its place within the crucial "junction box" of his argument, use of the phrase in this passage confirms that dikaiosune theou is descriptive of God; his character as righteous is front and center in the gospel. Romans 3:21-26 likewise reinforces this confirmation, for Paul goes on to make the case, as you have translated that God put forth his own Son as propitiation "for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of those who belong to Jesus' faithfulness" (3:26).

True as it is that the phrase dikaiosune theou is not to be confused with our being justified or declared righteous, Paul makes it clear that the two matters are not unrelated, as 3:26 makes clear. The two concepts--"God's righteousness" and "our being declared righteous"--are not separable, but they are distinguishable, and necessarily distinguishable as Paul's words make clear. It is deeply regrettable that so few NT and Pauline scholars, in particular, seem to recognize this distinction. Thus, by failing to recognize this distinction, some perpetuate the notion that dikaiosune theou can simultaneously mean both "God's righteousness" (descriptive of God's character) and "a righteousness from God" (speaking of the gift of justification that God gives to believers, as the NIV interprets the phrase dikaiosunedikaisune theou). confusiononfustion, one can here it in lecture three of the the recent lectures by D. A. Carson on the so-called "New Pauline Perspective." In his lecture he offers a brief exposition of Romans 3:21-26. Without indicating that the phrase dikaiosune theou requires one to make a careful exegetical decision whether the phrase should be understood as "God's righteousness" as it unambiguously means in 3:5 or as "a righteousness from God" as the NIV interprets the phrase, he speaks as if the phrase can mean both things at the same time, as if it were a case of double entendre. If, however, it were a case of double entendre, Paul surely did not make it clear at all.

Failure to make the necessary exegetical decision concerning dikaiosune theou has led many to use seriously confusing shorthand expressions, one of which you address in your "aside." You stated, "As an aside, it seems like we need to stop talking about being justified by faith, as if the ground of our justification is our faith. This is simply another way of talking about being justified by some good work, which we produce. Instead, we should talk about being justified on the basis of God grace through Jesus the faithful one."

I agree with your translation of 3:22 with its phrase pistis Christou as "Messiah's faithfulness." The claim that it would be a redundant expression, if taken as most modern translations interpret the phrase--through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe (ESV)--is valid, but it is hardly a convincing reason to translate the phrase as you have done. Instead, a serious exegetical and theological work must ground this exegetical decision. It is worthy of note that there is a modern translation that does interpret the phrase to mean "Jesus Christ's faithfulness." For those who have not noticed yet, they should take a close and careful look at the NET Bible with its copious notes of explanation.

I wonder if you may have actually intended to say the following, "It seems like we need to stop talking about being justified on the basis of faith [instead of by faith], as if the ground of our justification is our faith." In my estimation, the problem is not that we talk about being justified by faith, for by faith is a valid way of expressing means. Instead, what troubles me is when I hear preachers and teachers talking about our being justified on the basis of our faith. Here, then, is where your question rightly takes on its valid punch: How is being justified on the basis of our faith an improvement on being justified on the basis of our works?

I anticipate that I will be offering further comments on this passage, but for now, I will post what I have written.

Paulos

Romans 3:21-26

2005-05-24T22:16:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
Greetings! Though you did not find much to add to my former commentary, I do not think this will be the case for this post. I believe I have the big picture down, now I will need you to fill in the cracks and insufficient connections or comments. Most likely this will not be the only post I make on this most important passage. But what I have now, I will send you.

Thank you for your help. I am grateful for your agreement to discuss this great letter. I am learning much! I cannot believe how I have taken this passage, considering from where I have come. But I am pushed by the text to take it this way. Let me know what you think. Grace to you, Paulos!

Romans 3:21-26

²¹ But now God’s righteousness has been revealed apart from the Law, though testified to by the Law and the prophets, ²² that is God’s righteousness through Jesus the Messiah’s faithfulness for all who believe. For there is no distinction, ²³ because all have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, ²⁴ being freely declared righteous by his grace through the redemption which is in Messiah Jesus, ²⁵ whom God put forth publicly as propitiation through faithfulness which is in his blood for the purpose of demonstrating his righteousness because of God’s forbearance in the passing over of previously committed sins ²⁶ for the demonstration of his righteousness in the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of those who belong to Jesus’ faithfulness.

Because the Law brings knowledge of sin, God’s righteousness is revealed apart from the Law. But lest we become Marcion, Paul is quick to show that the Law and the prophets witnessed to God’s righteousness. What is this righteousness? It is God’s faithfulness to the promises, but even more it is God’s justice, his truthfulness. God is showing that he is morally right. God’s righteousness is revealed through Jesus the Messiah’s faithfulness. Israel, the unfaithful one, failed. Jesus the faithful one has triumphed. Jesus’ faithfulness is for all who believe. Why for all who believe? Because all have sinned. God does not make a distinction between Jew and Gentile, because all are under judgment. Thus, the benefits of Jesus’ faithfulness are for all who believe in Jesus the Messiah. What is the benefit? All who belong to Jesus’ faithfulness are freely declared righteous, not on the basis of the Law, but because of God’s grace (As an aside, it seems like we need to stop talking about being justified by faith, as if the ground of our justification is our faith. This is simply another way of talking about being justified by some good work, which we produce. Instead, we should talk about being justified on the basis of God grace through Jesus the faithful one.) through the sacrificial death of Jesus the faithful one on behalf of those who belong to him.

Though we celebrate the free gift of God, one could argue that God is not righteous because sins are simply passed over. In other words, there is no justice if crimes go unpunished. In fact Proverbs 17:15 states, “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD” (NAU). Paul has just argued that all have sinned, so then the question is how is it that God can pronounce a verdict of righteous regarding those who have sinned? God is both just and the justifier, because of Jesus’ propitiation. Because Jesus fulfilled the role of the sacrificial lamb, by taking on the punishment for the sins of those who belong to him, the just penalty for sins has been accomplished. Thus, because Jesus took on the penalty for the sins of those who believe/belong to him, those who belong to Jesus’ faithfulness are declared righteous before a just God.

Comments on Romans 3:9-20

2005-05-22T14:29:00.000-05:00

I find little to add to your good comments.

I agree with your translation, including the middle voice verb in verse 9.

The only matter that I might add is simply an emphasis. Within Paul's argument, 3:9-20 makes up the closing argument of his arraignment of humanity. His arraignment excludes no one who is apart from Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. In response, all apart from Christ should plea guilty. This arraignment of humanity sets the stage for the good news of acquittal in Christ Jesus on account of his faithfulness (3:21ff).

Romans 3:9-20

2005-05-20T23:47:00.000-05:00

⁹ What then? Do we have advantage? Not at all! For we have previously charged that everyone, both Jew and Greek, are under sin. ¹⁰As it is written,

There is no one righteous, not even one;

¹¹ there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God.

¹² All have turned away, together they have become worthless; there is no one doing good. There is not one (Ps 14:1-3).

¹³ Their throat is an open grave. With their tongues they deceive (Ps 5:9). The poison of asps is under their lips (Ps 140:3).

¹⁴ Their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness (Ps 10:7).

¹⁵ Their feet are swift to shed blood,

¹⁶ Destruction and misery are in their paths;

¹⁷ they do not know the way of peace (Isa 59:7-8).

¹⁸ God’s fearfulness is not before their eyes (Ps 36:2).

¹⁹ We know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, in order that every mouth may be shut and that all the world may be liable to judgment by God. ²⁰ Because of this, on the basis of the deeds required by the Law no flesh shall be declared righteous, for through the Law comes knowledge of sin.

As you can tell from my translation of verse 9, I have followed most English translations and interpreted proechesthai as a middle with active meaning. Thus Paul is asking a question similar to one asked in 3:2a (What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? ² Much in every way! [NIV]). Though this is a similar question the answer if far different here than in 3:1. There is a privilege for the Jews for they were recipients of the good things of God. But the privilege became curse, because the Jews did not obey the Law. So Paul has a nuanced view regarding Israel. On one hand there is advantage, but this advantage brought about judgment because possession of the oracles of God is not what God was about. What Law requires is obedience.

After asking and answering, Paul in a catena shows from the Scriptures that all flesh, the world, is under judgment because of sin. What I find interesting with the catena is that some of the quotes indict Gentiles and others indict Jews. For example, from my interpretation of Psalm 5, David’s enemies here are not Gentiles but Jews, who are speaking lies against him. So, Paul is showing with the very quotes he is using that all flesh, both Jew and Gentile stand as sinners before God. Now no doubt Jews would not disagree in Paul’s assessment regarding Gentiles. So it seems to me that the emphasis in vv. 9-20 does fall on Israel, so that Israel must look squarely into the Scriptures and see the brutal reality. What is the brutal reality? It is that the very Law which Israel possessed, and by possessing it, trusted in it as the basis of their justification before God, bears witness against them that they stand guilty of transgression and sin before God. The Law does not give evidence for acquittal before God. Rather, the Law shuts the mouths of the Jews, and places them in the dock along with Gentiles as unrighteous, as those deserving judgment.

Because of this Jews cannot trust in the Law as the basis of their acquittal before God. Why? Because through the Law came a knowledge of sin. The Law was not given to be a basis for justification. The Law was given to bring a knowledge of sin.

In this section Paul shores up his argument which he began in 1:18. In shoring up his argument, he also paved the way for his argument regarding the true basis for justification before God: the grace of God through the faithfulness of Jesus the Christ.

Comments on Romans 3:5-8

2005-05-18T09:48:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Your translation of Romans 3:5-8 is good. For convenience I have preserved it here.

⁵But, if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous when he inflicts wrath?—I speak on the level of human terms. ⁶Banish the thought! Otherwise, how will God judge the world? ⁷But if by my lie the truth of God abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? ⁸And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just!

I offer only the following as a suggestion for sharpening the focus of this portion of Paul's argument. Here is how I would translate verse 7--But if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?

In a paper that I wrote that is in process toward publication, I suggested,

Romans 3:1-8 functions as a junction switch box through which Paul threads all the wires of his argument in the letter and at which point he interrupts the circuit so that he does not fully answer the questions he poses in 3:1. In 9:1-11:36 he will reconnect the circuit to continue answering his questions. He does this only after he aggravates the dilemma his questions pose by arguing that the promise to Abraham is not provincial but universal.

My point is that Romans 3:1-8 serves as the beginning of Paul's prosecutorial summary statement of God's righteous case against humanity and at the same time is his defense of God's righteousness, which, after all, is the actual legal case of his argument. So, as Paul had indicated in 1:17, so now he confirms that his argument is a defense of God's righteousness, which is to say, of God's character as righteous. God is righteous to condemn unrighteous humans (1:18-2:29). The fact that since 1:17, 3:5 is his next mention of and use of the phrase dikaiosune theou ("the righteousness of God"), this passage confirms the point we made in our comments on 1:17 that Paul's phraseology--dikaiosune theou--there concerns God's character as righteous rather than God's gift of righteousness to humans. It is not, however, as if this statement denies the fact that Paul will have much to say of God's gift of righteousness to humans through Christ Jesus. It is only to say that this is neither the meaning of the phrase dikaiosune theou nor the thesis of Paul's argument. Paul's phrase throughout his letter and his argument throughout Romans concerns the character of God. This is what Paul is making quite plain now in Romans 3:1-8.

Now, if Romans 3:1-8 is, as I have suggested, "a junction switch box through which Paul threads all the wires of his argument in the letter," it is important that we recognize, as you have suggested, that Paul's argument anticipates later portions of his letter. I believe that you have rightly observed that Paul's use of the first person singular in 3:7 anticipates his use of the same in 7:7-25.

Daniel, our discussion partner in the comments feature, also rightly drew attention to the fact that 3:1-8 anticipates Paul's argument of Romans 9-11. Hence, I say, "In 9:1-11:36 he will reconnect the circuit to continue answering his questions" initially posed in 3:1-8.

I believe that it is also necessary to recognize that a foundational belief grounds Paul's defense of God's righteousness in 3:1-8 but that he has not expressly stated it yet. He will return to it in Romans 9, but for now, he assumes it for the sake of his argument in 3:1-8. We get a hint of it, if we read your comments carefully and thoughtfully. You stated,

After raising one objection and dealing with it (vv.3-4), Paul raises another objection “But, if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous when he inflicts wrath?—I speak in on the level of human terms” (v. 5). The thought here, it seems, is that if God’s righteousness is demonstrated by the unrighteousness of Israel, God, then is unrighteous, when he inflicts wrath on those who provided the context in which his righteousness is demonstrated. This objection is almost unspeakable for Paul, hence the statement regarding speaking on the level of human terms. Paul’s answer to this objection is the same as the one is verse 4, “Banish the thought!” After this, Paul fills out his reason by the use of a shared understanding. That is, it seems that with the question, “Otherwise, how will God judge the world?” Paul is assuming that his objectors believe that God will judge the world. If this is so then the reasoning would go something like the following:

The righteousness of God will be displayed as he inflicts wrath on the world, because the world is unrighteous before God. If God can be righteous by inflicting wrath on the world, because of its unrighteousness, then he can be righteous in inflicting wrath upon unrighteous Israel.

What does Paul's argument in 3:1-8 assume but leaves unstated until chapter 9? It is the fact that God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful that he might display his faithfulness to his promise to the patriarchs. God ordained that Israel should be unrighteous in order that he might demonstrate his righteousness in the gospel. God ordained that Israel should be untruthful that he might exhibit his truthfulness in Jesus Christ. God ordained that Israel should be unfaithful, unrighteous, and untruthful in order that God's own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness might shine all the more brilliantly (cf. Rom 9:22ff, "What if? . . .").

This assumption is made most evident in 3:7 in two specific ways--But if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?--first with the supposition if by my falsehood God's truthfulness abounds for his glory, and second by the question portion why am I still condemned as a sinner? The supposition links "my falsehood" (which is Paul's way of speaking of Israel's falsehood) as purposefully designed as the occasion by which "God's truthfulness abounds for his glory." This entails God's foreordination which Paul expounds substantively in chapter 9. Notice that the question why am I still condemned as a sinner? anticipates the same question Paul will raise in 9:19, "Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will?" The question of 3:8 also foreshadows Paul's argument in 5:20-6:1ff, once again underscoring how central to his gospel is his belief in the sovereign foreordaining purposes of God.

In case anyone doubts the veracity of what I have just stated, Paul's words in 3:8 should put objections to rest. He states, And why not say (as we are slandered and as some claim we say) ‘Let us do evil that good may come about?’ Their condemnation is just! The charge would be pointless, if Paul's argument were not that God ordained Israel's covenant disloyalty (unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, untruthfulness). Why such a slanderous charge? It is because those who hurl the accusation do not believe in the compatibility of God's foreordaining of all things and the accountability of human sinning. In other words, subtle as it may seem to be, Paul is contending that it is vital to his gospel that he preach that God's foreordained purposes for Israel were realized through Israel's unfaithfulness, unrighteousness, and untruthfulness, for God purposed this in order that he might demonstrate his own faithfulness, righteousness, and truthfulness in the gospel, through his Son, Jesus Christ.

So, Romans 3:1-8 is crucial to Paul's argument throughout his letter. It brings to summation his argument in 1:18-2:29 and at the same time foreshadows all that he will argue in 3:21 forward. And, germane to Paul's gospel is his resolute belief that God planned Israel's unfaithfulness as much as he planned for his Son's faithfulness as the ground upon which he would justify sinners.

Paulos

Romans 3:5-8

2005-05-17T21:20:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
Welcome back! Thank you for your thoughts! I am tracking with you, and I will work your suggestions into my comments and translations. Here is the next round. These verses, though compact, are a bit difficult to put together. I have given it a shot, and I expect some good responses. Grace to you!

Romans 3:5-8

After raising one objection and dealing with it (vv.3-4), Paul raises another objection “But, if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous when he inflicts wrath?—I speak in on the level of human terms” (v. 5). The thought here, it seems, is that if God’s righteousness is demonstrated by the unrighteousness of Israel, God, then is unrighteous, when he inflicts wrath on those who provided the context in which his righteousness is demonstrated. This objection is almost unspeakable for Paul, hence the statement regarding speaking on the level of human terms. Paul’s answer to this objection is the same as the one is verse 4, “Banish the thought!” After this, Paul fills out his reason by the use of a shared understanding. That is, it seems that with the question, “Otherwise, how will God judge the world?” Paul is assuming that his objectors believe that God will judge the world. If this is so then the reasoning would go something like the following:

The righteousness of God will be displayed as he inflicts wrath on the world, because the world is unrighteous before God. If God can be righteous by inflicting wrath on the world, because of its unrighteousness, then he can be righteous in inflicting wrath upon unrighteous Israel.

In verse 7, with the use of the first person, Paul may here be hinting at what he will do in chapter 7, regarding Israel with the Law under death without the Spirit, while raising another possible objection, which is akin to the other objections. How is it that God can hold Israel (Paul’s use of first person as representative of Israel) condemned as a sinner, because though they did not obey the oracles, they still brought about the purposes of God? Then Paul states a claim which is a blasphemy of his teaching that the unrighteousness of Israel demonstrates the righteousness of God. One can hear easily how this slander distorts the truth which Paul is articulating. And Paul’s rendering to those who slander him is “There condemnation is just” (v. 8).

Comments on Romans 3:1-4

2005-05-17T07:30:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

Thanks for breaking this portion of Romans into smaller segments, since the opening portion of Romans 3 is so full. You've given me an opportunity to catch up to you after lagging behind.

Daniel, one of our more active discussion partners, has stated the matter well: "It's interesting how this section in many ways foreshadows the discussion in ch. 9-11. It is important to observe that the questions or objections that come up in ch. 9 are given in an abbreviated form here in ch. 3." This is entirely correct. Romans 3:1-8 is critical to Paul's whole argument in Romans.

Paulos

First, I offer a few translational notes.

¹ What, therefore, is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the point of circumcision? ² Much in every respect! First indeed that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. ³ What then? If some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? ⁴ Banish the thought! God is true and every man is a liar, just as it is written, “That you might be justified in your words, and you will prevail when you judge” (Psalm 51:4).

For English readers, I offer two translational comments.

First, the verb, "they were entrusted," is the first of four words Paul uses that build off the same stem, pist- (verb: trust, believe; noun: trustworthiness; faithfulness). Thus, we could translate the pertinent sentences this way: First, indeed they were entrusted with the oracles of God. What then? If some were untrustworthy, does their untrustworthiness nullify the trustworthiness of God? What is significant about this? It underscores the fact that Israel had a God-appointed role to carry out within the unfolding drama of God's story of redemption. God entrusted Israel with his special revelation, which Paul calls the oracles of God, Holy Scripture. The some, whom Paul identifies as untrustworthy (vs 3), is actually the larger part of Israel, thus bringing about God's banishment of the House of Israel and the House of Judah into exile. Israel failed to be trustworthy with God's oracles, but, Paul insists, this does not mean that God's purpose failed, for God is trustworthy. Israel's untrustworthiness does not and cannot nullify God's trustworthiness.

Second, verse 4 may be better translated to show the imperative: Let God be found true, but every man be found a liar, just as it is written, “That you might be justified in your words and might prevail when you judge.” Paul uses the imperative instead of the indicative verb form, I think, because he continues his role as God's attorney, in the tradition of the OT prophets, who is prosecuting God's case against humanity, and specifically against Israel at this point. So, Paul uses the imperative ("let . . . be found") as he argues his case, calling for the acquittal of God and the indictment or condemnation of man, particularly Israel. This point is confirmed by Paul's citation of Psalm 51:4, “That you might be justified in your words and might prevail when you judge.” You are right when you say, "Thus, the quote from Psalm 51 grounds Paul’s statement that unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s truth, and the larger context of Psalm 51 points to where Paul is going."

Therefore, I do agree with N. T. Wright that Paul, as God's prosecuting attorney, is indicting or condemning Israel for failing to be the "light of the world," but for Israel to have been the light of the world required Israel's obedience to the Law, not merely possession of the Law, just as Paul has already argued throughout Romans 2. So, Timotheos, I concur with you when you say, "Then the focus is on the transgression, and seeing the larger significance of the transgression as not being light. . . . This seems to be the point of ‘entrusted’." Thus, Israel, like Adam, fulfilled its role in God's plan by failing to be trustworthy with the oracles of God. To express the matter in riddle form: Israel fulfilled God's appointed role by failing to obey God's Law, and thus failing to be the light of the world in order that God might send his Son to be light of the world through the good news of his trustworthiness.

The fullness and weightiness of Paul's argument that contrasts Israel's untrustworthiness and God's trustworthiness can hardly be emphasized too much, here. What Paul says in Romans 3:1-8 is explanatory of his whole argument thus far and from this point forward. The apostle has prosecuted humanity apart from Christ--Gentile and Jew, alike--as unrighteous and as untrustworthy, and thus, condemned before God's judgment bar. By way of sharp contrast, Paul's argument is focused entirely upon God's character as the whole source of humanity's hope of acquittal before God's judgment bar: God is trustworthy (faithful); God is righteous; and God is truthful. The first of these occurs within Romans 3:1-4. The latter two will be seen in Romans 3:5-8.

Romans 3:1-4

2005-05-16T21:41:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
Here is my next translation and commentary. I took a shorter section for this entry. Things are a bit busy right now. I look forward to your response! Grace to you, my friend.

Romans 3:1-4

¹ What, therefore, is the advantage of the Jew? Or what is the point of circumcision? ² Much in every respect! First indeed that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. ³ What then? If some were unfaithful, does their unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? ⁴ Banish the thought! God is true and every man is a liar, just as it is written, “That you might be justified in your words, and you will prevail when you judge” (Psalm 51:4).

Given that God is making Jews of Gentiles, while the Gentiles remain uncircumcised in the flesh (2:29), the question Paul poses is crucial. If God is doing this, then what is the advantage to being a Jew and what is the point of circumcision? These are legitimate questions that flow from what Paul has just argued above regarding Gentiles who do the Law. It is instructive that Paul does not write off the Jew or circumcision. Instead he upholds the significance of the circumcision. Why? Because, Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God. That is, God gave the oracles to Israel, so that they would do and speak them to the world (Wright here makes much of Israel made to be the ‘light of the world’ as the task that Israel failed to accomplish. This may be the case, but I think this may be limiting Paul’s statement here. But I suppose Paul has already hinted at this in 2:23-24. But even there the idea seems to be larger than being ‘light of the world’. But then again could it not be that in transgressing Israel failed its vocation? Then the focus is on the transgression, and seeing the larger significance of the transgression as not being light. What do you think, Paulos?). This seems to be the point of ‘entrusted’. The question is then raised, regarding God’s faithfulness. That is, if Israel was entrusted with the oracles of God, and Israel was not faithful to God, does Israel’s unfaithfulness nullify the faithfulness of God? The answer that Paul expects by the question (because of how he wrote it in Greek) is ‘No’. God’s faithfulness is not nullified by the unfaithfulness of Israel. To show this Paul quotes from Psalm 51, the psalm of David, which was prayed after Nathan, God’s prophet confronted David regarding his adultery with Bathsheba. God’s judgment of David’s sin is right and just. His words are found true even though David committed adultery, lied, and murdered. What is interesting here is that David calls for God to cleanse him and wash away the sins that are ever present before him. Is Paul here alluding with this quote to the end of chapter 3, where Jesus is put forth as an atoning sacrifice? It seems this is the case. Thus, the quote from Psalm 51 grounds Paul’s statement that unfaithfulness does not nullify God’s truth, and the larger context of Psalm 51 points to where Paul is going.

Comments on Romans 2:25-29

2005-05-15T05:46:00.000-05:00

I do not have much to offer by way of comments.

I wonder if you may have meant something different from what you stated in the following sentence. "Now that Paul has shown that the Law, Israel’s boast, works against Israel, because Israel has not fulfilled its appointed purpose, Paul shows that circumcision of the flesh, another great marker of Israel, is not profitable for Israel because of transgression. I mean to focus on the underlined portion. I wonder if you didn't mean ". . . because Israel has not done what it was commanded. . . ." The reason I raise this is that it seems to me that Israel did actually fulfill its God-appointed purpose even by her disobedience. This, it seems to me, is precisely what Paul shows in the next chapter, Romans 3:1-8. The words fulfilled and appointed purpose suggest typological or prophetic function.

I believe you are right to point out similarity between Paul's words and those of Hosea, as you say, "In fact, for transgressors, circumcision is of no value, because the transgression makes the one with fleshly circumcision to be as uncircumcision. This seems to be similar to what the Lord says through Hosea, that ‘my people’ will become ‘not my people’ (Hosea 1:9)."

I offer the following comment with Daniel in mind (a discussion partner) and in anticipation of Paul's discussion of being declared righteous, particularly of Abraham in Romans 4. The verse is 26, "Therefore, if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" For Daniel's sake, I want to point out the significance of this verse for confirming my interpretation of Romans 2:13. As I argued on that verse, Paul does not say that "the doers of the Law will be justified" on the basis of their doing the Law, but instead, Paul is characterizing whom the Lord will justify in the Last Day. So, in 2:26, Paul does not argue that "the uncircumcised man" who "keeps the righteous requiresments of the Law" will be reckoned as circumcised on the basis of his keeping the righteous requirements of the Law. Paul is not speaking of the basis of God's reckoning the "uncircumcised" man as "circumcised." Yet, Paul's use of reckon is of the same conceptual domain as justify, as it is in Romans 4 when he says that God reckoned Abraham's faith for righteousness. In other words, the circumcision that counts with God is of a piece with righteousness that counts with God. Neither is instrinsic to the human; both are gifts from God.

Romans 2:25-29

2005-05-14T22:03:00.000-05:00

Romans 2:25-29

²⁵ For on the one hand circumcision is profitable if you practice the Law, but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. ²⁶ Therefore, if the uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision? ²⁷ And the one who by nature is uncircumcised, but fulfills the Law, will judge you, the transgressor of the Law, though having the letter and the circumcision. ²⁸ For it is not the Jew in the open, nor the circumcision in the open in the flesh, ²⁹ but the Jew in the secret and the circumcision of the heart by the Spirit not by the letter who receives praise not from men, but from God.

Now that Paul has shown that the Law, Israel’s boast, works against Israel, because Israel has not fulfilled its appointed purpose, Paul shows that circumcision of the flesh, another great marker of Israel, is not profitable for Israel because of transgression. In fact, for transgressors, circumcision is of no value, because the transgression makes the one with fleshly circumcision to be as uncircumcision. This seems to be similar to what the Lord says through Hosea, that ‘my people’ will become ‘not my people’ (Hosea 1:9).

Not only does transgression show that circumcision is of no profit, but there is a new man, who condemns the transgressor of the Law. Who is this new man? The new man is a new covenant Gentile, that is he fulfills the Law, because though he is uncircumcised in the flesh, he keeps the righteous requirements of the Law. Paul had to have had a smirk on his face has he pen this, for he must have seen the oddity of calling an uncircumcised man a keeper of the righteous requirements, since one of the requirements was to be circumcised. How then does a new covenant Gentile fulfill the Law? He is circumcised of the heart by the Spirit not by the letter. In other words, this new covenant Gentile is in the new covenant because he has the Spirit, who is the promise of the new covenant (Jer 31:33). Thus by being a new covenant Gentile, he fulfills the Law, that is he shows its completion, because he now is a Jew in the secret, the circumcised of the heart, which the prophets promised would come. And because the new covenant has come, the old covenant is fulfilled or completed. This also implies that a Jew, who is one in the open, must become circumcised of the heart, or his praise will simply come from men and not from God. Thus, the Jew in the flesh must become a Jew of the heart, or his fleshly circumcision will become to him as uncircumcision, and thus he will be cut off (Yes, pun intended!) from God.

Comments on Romans 2:17-24

2005-05-14T16:58:00.000-05:00

I'm sorry for my delayed response. End of the semester demands have kept me away from the blog. Now that I'm just about finished with scoring and grading, I will try to post responses to each of your last three installments.

Paulos

You asked three questions:

One- Paul talks about how Israel has in the Law the semblance or form of knowledge (v. 20). Is Paul’s use of ‘external form’ (morphosin) neutral, positive, or polemical? What I am thinking is that morphosin could be polemical, because the Law, though good, did not change the heart, thus it was simply external, yet still good, for it taught truth and knowledge. Is Paul hinting at something here with morphosin that he will later develop in chapters 7 and 8?

Two- What do you think about the reference to the exile still occurring for Israel in a non-geographical sense like Wright argues? It seems persuasive to me.

Three- It seems to me that in this section Paul is not concerned to show that each individual Jew is guilty of all his indictments, rather he is showing that Israel as a covenant people is guilty before God, because they transgressed the very Law they relied on. Is it helpful to make this distinction?

On your first question, I wonder if we actually have to choose among the choices you offer. The Law, as given by God, was external in form and positive in function in that it bore typological significance as it pointed away from itself to the giver of the Law. Thus, the Israelites had true knowledge of God, even if it was not inscribed upon their hearts as it became inscribed upon the hearts of the Gentiles of whom Paul speaks (we know them as Christians). At the same time, it seems to me, that there is likely a sardonic touch in Paul's use of morphosin, for the truth they had in the Law remained external and not inscribed upon their hearts.

Concerning your question about the exile continuing upon the Israelites in a non-geographical but spiritual sense, I concur. I believe the exile endures for the larger part of Israel even today. Surely, after Israelites returned to the land from the Babylonian captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah were quite aware that the exile was enduring, despite their being back in the land. Thus, they recognized that the exile was not fundamentally geographical but spiritual.

As you state the matter, yes, I believe it is helpful and necessary to recognize that Paul's indictments in Romans 2 are not against every individual Israelite without exception but against Israel as a covenant people in distinction from those Gentiles to whom Paul refers (namely, believing Gentiles). Not all who went into exile and remained in exile with Israel were unbelieving and rebellious. Daniel and others are examples. What you say about Romans 2 is true also, in a sense, with regard to Romans 1:18-32. In Romans 1:18-32 Paul is not indicting every person without exception, as if he were indicting us who are Christians. No. Paul is indicting all who are not in Christ.

Romans 2:17-24

2005-04-26T22:04:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
I have finally been able to post. Here are my thoughts on Romans 2:17-24. I am anxious to hear what you think? Also, did you read the most recent comment? What do you think of the thought? I am leaning in that direction. Anyway, here is my translation and comments along with a few questions! Thank you for your patience.

Timotheos

Romans 2:17-24

¹⁷ But if you call yourself ‘Jew’ and you rely on Law and you boast in God ¹⁸ and you know the will and you test the things that matter, because you are instructed by the Law ¹⁹ and you are convinced that you yourselves are a guide to the blind, a light for those in the darkness, ²⁰ an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having the semblance of knowledge and truth in the Law; ²¹ therefore, the one teaching the other, do you not teach yourself? The one preaching, ‘Do not steal’, do you steal? ²² The one saying, ‘Do not commit adultery’, do you commit adultery? The one detesting idols, do you rob temples? ²³ You who boast in the Law, through transgression of the Law, dishonor God. ²⁴ For ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the nations because of you (Isaiah 52:5; cf. Ezekiel 36:20-23), just as it is written.

Short Comment:

Israel may boast in the Law, but because Israel has transgressed the Law, God is not honored, rather he is dishonored by the one’s who ‘rely on Law’.

Longer Comment:

Israel was chosen by God to be a light to the nations. He chose them not because of their stature, but that he might display his glory through them. Because of this to them belong the Law, which was a guide, it was the very revelation of God. To Israel belonged both election and the Law, the wisdom of God. Because of election and Law, Israel was equipped to teach, to be a light, to guide the blind.

But the Law with its truth, its revelation, its semblance of knowledge, actually speaks against the recipients of the Law, because Israel has transgressed the very Law which it taught. Paul now is pressing home a point which he began in 1:18ff, which is that Israel has disobeyed the command of God just as Adam had. Though Israel was set up to be a type of new Adam, Israel, far from succeeding in this role, actually replayed the very sin of Adam. Though Paul hinted at this in Chapter 1 of his letter, he is now pressing it home. Israel was set apart to be a light to the nations, but instead of being a light, Israel has dishonored God, because the very things Israel was teaching the other nations not to do, Israel was doing. Israel has not fulfilled its appointment. Israel failed to be ‘a light to the nations’. Instead of the nations giving God honor, as Isaiah states, ‘the name of God is blasphemed’.

By mentioning ‘the name of God blasphemed among the nations’, Paul is evoking the exilic tradition in Isaiah and Ezekiel. What Paul seems to be doing (This is how Wright talks about it in his Romans Commentary, 447-448) is saying that Israel’s exile was still continuing, though not in a geographical sense. Paul is introducing this here not only to show Israel’s failure but to set the stage for his discussion later in Chapter 10 where he talks of the gospel (here also he quotes again from Isaiah 52). Paul will do this to show that God’s long-awaited promise of redemption is being fulfilled in Jesus the Messiah, Lord, the faithful one.

With this I now have a few questions:

One- Paul talks about how Israel has in the Law the semblance or form of knowledge (v. 20). Is Paul’s use of ‘external form’ (morphosin) neutral, positive, or polemical? What I am thinking is that morphosin could be polemical, because the Law, though good, did not change the heart, thus it was simply external, yet still good, for it taught truth and knowledge. Is Paul hinting at something here with morphosin that he will later develop in chapters 7 and 8?

Two- What do you think about the reference to the exile still occurring for Israel in a non-geographical sense like Wright argues? It seems persuasive to me.

Three- It seems to me that in this section Paul is not concerned to show that each individual Jew is guilty of all his indictments, rather he is showing that Israel as a covenant people is guilty before God, because they transgressed the very Law they relied on. Is it helpful to make this distinction?

Journeys Again

2005-04-23T09:31:00.000-05:00

Paulos,
You may be wondering, Where is Timotheos? Well, I have been on another journey, and I just returned, and I am getting my affairs back in order after the trip. I will comment on Romans 2 very soon. Thank you as well for you latest post regarding Romans 2. I have seen the connection to James as you note well. I also find it interesting that James makes a tight connection to Law and Wisdom. Have you seen this too? Also, one other question on James, do you see the references in James to nomos as a reference to Torah? That is, is the perfect law Torah?

Again, it is good to be home, and I will post very soon. Thank you for your patience!

Timotheos

Comments on Romans 2:12-16

2005-04-19T15:42:00.000-05:00

Timotheos,

I believe you have spoken well concerning Romans 2:12-13. I would simply add that the notoriously difficult verse 13 is not as difficult as so many commentators make it. Paul's words--For the hearers of the Law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the Law will be declared righteous.--do not speak of the basis of justification. If he had spoken of the basis of justification, he would have used different wording. Paul uses two adjectival nouns in contrast the hearers (hoi akroatai) and the doers (hoi poietai). In other words, Paul is not speaking of the basis upon which anyone will be justified in the Last Day. Rather, he is talking about whom God will justify on the Last Day. He is only identifying whom God will justify in the Last Day. He is not identifying something in them that serves as the basis of God's Last Day justifying verdict.

Paul's contrast is not unlike James' contrast: "Be doers [poietai] of the word, and not hearers [akroatai] only, deceiving yourselves" (James 1:22). They use the same adjectival nouns. The interest of both James and Paul is to identify by characteristic.

I believe that Paul is speaking of Christian Gentiles in Romans 2. However, one difficulty with this understanding, as you have pointed out, is the word phusei in 2:14, which you translated "by nature." It is conceivable that we could take the phrase "by nature" either as modifying "who do not have the Law" or "do the things required by the Law." I believe you are right to link the phrase with the words before it rather than after it. The expression "by nature" can hardly refer to something that is common to everyone, to all humans, including Jews. If so, Paul's point would be lost. Instead, "by nature" must be true of the Gentiles of whom Paul speaks in contrast to the Jews of whom he speaks. So, it seems to me, that Paul is not speaking of "natural law" with this expression. This is, in my opinion, one of the arguments for taking Romans 2 as referring to Gentile Christians. Thus, it seems to me, that you are correct to identify Paul's phrase to refer to "a new type of man," as you say, "a new covenant Gentile . . . who is a doer of the Law."

As for verse 15, you are right. It is not altogether clear to us. You translate the verse: they demonstrate the work required by the Law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing and defending them. I believe you rightly associate Paul's comments with the promise of the new covenant, the Law "written on the heart." On the one hand it seems that Paul has in view the consciences of Gentile believers testifying that they are acquitted before God. On the other hand, I wonder if Paul's words (their thoughts alternatively accusing and defending them) give expression to the universal Christian experience of the deep knowledge of acquittal before God while also the ever present realization that one is never finished with the plague of sin and its consequence, guilt, in this present age.

Paulos

Romans 2:12-16

2005-04-13T07:33:00.000-05:00

Paulos,

I have returned from my journeys, and I am back at trying to understand this most important letter. In this section of Romans things get a bit confusing, and there is a great deal of debate regarding this section. I am hoping I have grasped a bit of what Paul is saying, and where I have fallen short, I hope you will aid me in my understanding. I will need specific help with v. 15, which I cannot make head's or tail's of at this point. So any aid you could bring would be great. I will anxiously await your assessments. Grace to you!

Romans 2:12-16
12 For as many as have sinned without the Law will be destroyed apart from the Law; and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law. 13 For the hearers of the Law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the Law will be declared righteous. 14 For when the Gentiles, who do not have the Law by nature, do the things required by the Law, these not possessing the Law are a law unto themselves, 15 they demonstrate the work required by the Law written on their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternatively accusing and defending them 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of men according to my gospel through King Jesus.

In vv. 12-16 Paul is explaining more fully his argument in vv. 7-11, with a special focus on explaining v. 11(‘For there is no partiality with God’). Why is there no partiality with God regarding the judgment of the Jew and the Gentile? Paul answers this in vv. 12-13, “12 For as many as have sinned without the Law will be destroyed apart from the Law; and as many as have sinned in the Law will be judged by the Law. 13For the hearers of the Law are not righteous before God, but the doers of the Law will be declared righteous.” What Paul means here is that the possession of the Law does not give one special status before God at the judgment, because those who sinned without the Law, will perish without the Law (in other words Paul here is dealing with Gentiles), while those who have the Law (i.e., Jews) will be judged by the Law. Thus God will judge both the Jew and the Gentile, but he will not judge the Gentile like the Jew, that is, as if he possessed the Law. And the Jew will be judged as well, that is as one who is ‘in the Law’. In v. 13 Paul then moves on to describe who will receive vindication on the last day. It is those who do the Law who will be declared righteous. Those who simply hear the Law and not do the Law will be condemned by God, thus simple possession of the Law does not bring about a righteous verdict.

In mentioning ‘doers of the Law’ Paul here does not mean that these ‘doers’ earn God’s righteous verdict. Rather, Paul’s point must be understood in light of v. 6, where Paul says that God will render to each in keeping with his deeds. This is not about earning righteousness, it is about God giving a just decision, a just decision that is in keeping with one’s behavior. If one is a doer, they will hear ‘righteous’. If one is a hearer, they will hear ‘condemned’.

In vv. 14-15 Paul goes on to explain what he means by doing (notice the ‘for’ in v. 14). There are three views regarding vv. 14-15. First is the idea that Paul here is offering a hypothetical case, but that we all know that there is no one who does the Law, and so it is simply hypothetical. Another is that Paul is borrowing from Stoic thought regarding natural law (Most modern translations follow this line of thought seeing that the Gentile is doing ‘by nature’ [NIV] or ‘instinctively’ [NAU] the things required by the Law). The third view is the one I find most persuasive and it is that Paul here is introducing a new type of man, that is a new covenant Gentile, who is a Gentile (and remains thus) who is a doer of the Law. This Gentile by nature does not have the Law (The placement of ‘by nature’ in the sentence could either go with ‘not having’ or ‘doing’, but I see in light of things further in Romans [e.g., 2:27] that ‘by nature should modify ‘not having’.) but he does the Law. The new covenant (the reason for new covenant is that the Law written on the heart was a promise regarding the new covenant [Jer 31:33], and the Gentile is described this way) Gentile does the things required by the Law, because the Law is written on his heart. This, of course, is a strange scenario, because the new covenant Gentile remains a Gentile, that is he does not become a convert to Israel, but he nonetheless does the Law. How is it that one can remain a Gentile and do the Law? Paul will talk about this from now until chapter 9. But at least it is worth noting that Paul has a category for an uncircumcised doer of the Law. This is startling!

Journeys

2005-04-01T22:45:00.000-06:00

Paulos,

Thank you for your comments and observations! Your distinction between 'on the basis of' and 'in keeping with' is absolutely crucial, and my translation did not specify this distinction. So I will correct my translation. This idea of 'in keeping with' will also aid me the remainder of my translation and interpretation of Romans 2. Regarding this, I may not be able to post on Romans 2 until Tuesday, April 12th. I will be on a journey, and I may not have access. I will see what happens.

Grace to you until we talk again. Thank you again for your observations. I am greatly benefiting from this biblical internet exercise.

The Peace of Christ Rest on You!

Timotheos

Comments on Romans 2:1-11

2005-03-31T21:01:00.000-06:00

Timotheos,

Good comments and observations!

I would add simply a few observations concerning verse 6 to give your comments supporting context. The text says that God "will render to each one accoring to his deeds." I fear that many pass over Paul's experession as if kata ta erga autou means "on the basis of his deeds." Such is not the meaning, however. Rather, the phrase is better translated "in keeping with his deeds." The point that Paul as the Bible throughout consistently makes is that God's judgment will be just and right. No one will be able to object that God's verdict will be wrong, unfair, or unjust. Furthermore, the point Paul makes is one he reinforces in 2:13. Who are those people who will be justified in the Last Day? Only those who are properly called doers of the Law.

We would be quite wrong, as some unfortunately are, to handle the passage as if it says that God "will render to each one on the basis of his deeds." Even if commentators don't translate the phrase this way, many comment upon the passage in such a way that their minds are clearly clouded with the notion that this is what Paul's phrase means. Much of the current dispute that many have with the so-called NPP is grounded in their flawed assumption that kata ta erga autou means on the basis of his works.

The point I am making is that judgment in keeping with our works in the Last Day is not in the slightest way contrary to our present reception of God's Last Day verdict; presently we receive justification by faith. In the Last Day God's justifying verdict will not be on the basis of our works but will be in keeping with our works. Then, God's verdict of justification, fully grounded in the accomplishment in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and not at all in our works, will nonetheless be in keeping with our works which God's grace brings forth so that not one of us will be able to boast that we received God's acquittal on the basis of anything we have done.

Paulos

Romans 2:1-11

2005-03-29T22:32:00.000-06:00

Romans 2.1-11

¹ Therefore you are without excuse, O man, everyone rendering judgment. For in the act when you render judgment on another, you render judgment on yourself, for you who render judgment practice the same things. ²And we know that God’s judgment is according to the truth, against those who practice such things. ³Now do you think, O man who judges those who practice such things and does them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? ⁴Or, do you despise the riches of his kindness, forbearance, and patience, because you know that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance? ⁵But because of your hard and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God, ⁶who will render to everyone according to his deeds. ⁷To those who by persevering in a good work seek glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ⁸But on those who act out of selfish ambition and who disobey the truth and instead obey unrighteousness, he will inflict wrath and anger. ⁹There will be tribulation and distress for everyone who accomplishes evil, both the Jew first and also the Greek, ¹⁰but there will be glory and honor and peace to everyone who accomplishes good, both to the Jew first and also to the Greek. ¹¹For there is no partiality with God.

In 1.18-32 Paul's focus was on the Gentiles, but this focus did not exclude, as we discussed earlier, the Jews. On the contrary Paul displayed in 1.18ff that Israel recapitulated Adam's sin, principally at the golden calf incident. Now, though Paul turns his focus to Israel, who is the one who judges, and what was implied in 1.18ff Paul makes clear: Israel is storing up wrath.

Why is the one who renders judgment under his own judgment? Is it because his judgment is incorrect? No, that does not seem to be the case. Rather, the one passing judgment in this section is under judgment, because the judgment he renders regarding others, falls on him as well, because he is guilty of the same unrighteousness. Behind this reasoning by Paul seems to be Israel who could render the actions of the Gentiles as abominations, and thus believe themselves to be in the right, because they can render an accurate judgment. But this is not how it works. To be in the right requires a persevering in a good work. That is, God's kindness to Israel was intended to lead them to repentance. But Israel has scorned the kindness and mercy of God with their hard hearts. Israel, because of God's covenant and Law, believes that it by virtue of this relationship with God that he will escape the wrath to come.

Paul's critique is that it is not simply one's ability to judge which will bring about eternal life, but it is perseverance in a good work. Why? Because God does not show partiality for the Jew in his judgments. Both Jew and Greek receive from the Lord either tribulation and distress or glory and honor and peace. What determines what one receives is not nationality, that is Jew or Greek, but what one does. That is, the evil one, whether Jew or Greek, will receive tribulation and wrath. The one who accomplishes good will receive glory and honor. Why? Because there is no partiality with God. God's judgment is based on truth, and whether Jew or Greek, God's judgment falls on all who practice evil. And because Israel has also obey unrighteousness, Israel like the Gentiles is under God's judgment.